HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » When May I Shoot a Studen...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 09:16 AM

When May I Shoot a Student?---A must-read masterpiece of weaponized snark.

This op-ed in the NYTimes this morning by Prof. Greg Hampikian, Boise State University in Idaho, has written a must-read masterpiece of weaponized snark. The Idaho legislature has a bill pending that would allow students on campus to carry guns. A taste...


When May I Shoot a Student?
By GREG HAMPIKIANFEB. 27, 2014

BOISE, Idaho — TO the chief counsel of the Idaho State Legislature:

In light of the bill permitting guns on our state’s college and university campuses, which is likely to be approved by the state House of Representatives in the coming days, I have a matter of practical concern that I hope you can help with: When may I shoot a student?
...

I have had encounters with disgruntled students over the years, some of whom seemed quite upset, but I always assumed that when they reached into their backpacks they were going for a pencil. Since I carry a pen to lecture, I did not feel outgunned; and because there are no working sharpeners in the lecture hall, the most they could get off is a single point. But now that we’ll all be packing heat, I would like legal instruction in the rules of classroom engagement.
...

I assume that if a student shoots first, I am allowed to empty my clip; but given the velocity of firearms, and my aging reflexes, I’d like to be proactive. For example, if I am working out a long equation on the board and several students try to correct me using their laser sights, am I allowed to fire a warning shot?

...................

While our city police chief has expressed grave concerns about allowing guns on campus, I would point out that he already has one. I’m glad that you were not intimidated by him, and did not allow him to speak at the public hearing on the bill (though I really enjoyed the 40 minutes you gave to the National Rifle Association spokesman).



the rest:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/opinion/when-may-i-shoot-a-student.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/28/1281076/-When-May-I-Shoot-a-Student

166 replies, 9167 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 166 replies Author Time Post
Reply When May I Shoot a Student?---A must-read masterpiece of weaponized snark. (Original post)
kpete Feb 2014 OP
geckosfeet Feb 2014 #1
Paladin Feb 2014 #2
aikoaiko Feb 2014 #3
Thor_MN Feb 2014 #38
aikoaiko Feb 2014 #81
Thor_MN Feb 2014 #90
hack89 Feb 2014 #4
heaven05 Feb 2014 #7
hack89 Feb 2014 #9
heaven05 Feb 2014 #10
hack89 Feb 2014 #11
heaven05 Feb 2014 #13
hack89 Feb 2014 #16
heaven05 Feb 2014 #54
hack89 Feb 2014 #56
proudretiredvet Feb 2014 #111
heaven05 Feb 2014 #117
proudretiredvet Feb 2014 #119
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2014 #122
proudretiredvet Feb 2014 #124
Beartracks Mar 2014 #150
appal_jack Mar 2014 #147
heaven05 Mar 2014 #154
AlbertCat Feb 2014 #39
hack89 Feb 2014 #42
AlbertCat Feb 2014 #48
hack89 Feb 2014 #50
lastlib Feb 2014 #29
hack89 Feb 2014 #30
lastlib Feb 2014 #33
hack89 Feb 2014 #36
SomethingFishy Feb 2014 #67
hack89 Feb 2014 #69
joeglow3 Feb 2014 #140
appal_jack Mar 2014 #148
Bazinga Feb 2014 #37
JDPriestly Feb 2014 #62
valerief Feb 2014 #12
hack89 Feb 2014 #15
valerief Feb 2014 #17
hack89 Feb 2014 #18
valerief Feb 2014 #21
hack89 Feb 2014 #24
toby jo Feb 2014 #25
hack89 Feb 2014 #26
toby jo Feb 2014 #31
hack89 Feb 2014 #34
JDPriestly Feb 2014 #60
hack89 Feb 2014 #66
JDPriestly Feb 2014 #70
hack89 Feb 2014 #71
JDPriestly Feb 2014 #85
hack89 Feb 2014 #87
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2014 #88
WHEN CRABS ROAR Feb 2014 #128
XRubicon Feb 2014 #134
hack89 Feb 2014 #136
XRubicon Feb 2014 #137
hack89 Feb 2014 #138
XRubicon Feb 2014 #139
hack89 Feb 2014 #141
XRubicon Feb 2014 #143
Eleanors38 Feb 2014 #146
zeemike Feb 2014 #5
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2014 #6
Swede Atlanta Feb 2014 #14
Nuclear Unicorn Feb 2014 #20
DanTex Feb 2014 #23
MO_Moderate Feb 2014 #28
MicaelS Feb 2014 #68
Lurker Deluxe Feb 2014 #86
Ed Suspicious Mar 2014 #152
Lizzie Poppet Mar 2014 #155
ileus Mar 2014 #166
WinkyDink Feb 2014 #44
JDPriestly Feb 2014 #63
IDemo Mar 2014 #159
OneCrazyDiamond Feb 2014 #8
libodem Feb 2014 #19
DanTex Feb 2014 #22
Bazinga Feb 2014 #35
WillyT Feb 2014 #27
Bazinga Feb 2014 #32
sarisataka Feb 2014 #40
DanTex Feb 2014 #41
Bazinga Feb 2014 #43
DanTex Feb 2014 #47
Bazinga Feb 2014 #52
DanTex Feb 2014 #53
Bazinga Feb 2014 #55
DanTex Feb 2014 #57
Bazinga Feb 2014 #59
DanTex Feb 2014 #61
Bazinga Feb 2014 #76
DanTex Feb 2014 #80
Bazinga Feb 2014 #95
DanTex Feb 2014 #97
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2014 #100
DanTex Feb 2014 #101
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2014 #105
DanTex Feb 2014 #106
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2014 #107
DanTex Feb 2014 #108
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2014 #114
DanTex Feb 2014 #115
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2014 #120
Bazinga Feb 2014 #127
DanTex Feb 2014 #133
progressoid Feb 2014 #75
Bazinga Feb 2014 #77
progressoid Feb 2014 #79
Bazinga Feb 2014 #96
progressoid Feb 2014 #110
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2014 #116
progressoid Feb 2014 #126
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2014 #82
DanTex Feb 2014 #83
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2014 #92
DanTex Feb 2014 #94
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2014 #98
DanTex Feb 2014 #99
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2014 #102
DanTex Feb 2014 #104
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2014 #109
DanTex Feb 2014 #112
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2014 #121
DanTex Feb 2014 #130
sarisataka Feb 2014 #45
DanTex Feb 2014 #46
sarisataka Feb 2014 #49
DanTex Feb 2014 #51
sarisataka Feb 2014 #91
JDPriestly Feb 2014 #64
sarisataka Feb 2014 #73
JDPriestly Feb 2014 #58
ManiacJoe Feb 2014 #135
Ed Suspicious Mar 2014 #153
ManiacJoe Mar 2014 #163
Straw Man Feb 2014 #65
DanTex Feb 2014 #72
Straw Man Feb 2014 #123
llmart Feb 2014 #74
Straw Man Feb 2014 #125
petronius Feb 2014 #78
billh58 Feb 2014 #84
hack89 Feb 2014 #89
friendly_iconoclast Feb 2014 #93
Hoyt Feb 2014 #103
raven mad Feb 2014 #113
proudretiredvet Feb 2014 #118
Th1onein Feb 2014 #129
Jenoch Feb 2014 #131
ManiacJoe Feb 2014 #132
nikto Feb 2014 #142
cui bono Feb 2014 #144
Crunchy Frog Feb 2014 #145
King_Klonopin Mar 2014 #149
hack89 Mar 2014 #156
King_Klonopin Mar 2014 #164
hack89 Mar 2014 #165
secondvariety Mar 2014 #151
kmlisle Mar 2014 #157
hack89 Mar 2014 #158
kmlisle Mar 2014 #160
hack89 Mar 2014 #161
IDemo Mar 2014 #162

Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 09:25 AM

1. ...must read.. master bation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 09:34 AM

2. Bravo, Prof. Hampikian. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 09:42 AM

3. Feigned ignorance aside, the answer to the professors's question is very simple.


The laws concerning when one is justified in using lethal actions have not changed. A justified shooting is still a justified shooting whether guns are legally carried on campus or not.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 11:55 AM

38. The first rule of dictionaries is that you can not define

a word or phrase by using the word or phrase... Just saying...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #38)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 02:26 PM

81. True, but all dictionaries are perfect tautologies.


The question by the professor was...

In light of the bill permitting guns on our state’s college and university campuses, which is likely to be approved by the state House of Representatives in the coming days, I have a matter of practical concern that I hope you can help with: When may I shoot a student?


The answer is remains the same. His premise that something has changed is false.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #81)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 03:16 PM

90. Ridiculous. When the laws change, questioning the implications is never flawed.

While his question would be taken by most to be rhetorical, you seem to have wanted to provide an answer. The only problem was is that your answer was essentially, "It is what is is", a statement null of content.

Taken at face value, rather than as an illustrative point, his question does seem to have merit. If guns are legally allowed to be carried on campus, there is a reasonable expectation that more guns would be on campus. Considering all the "Stand Your Ground" nonsense, it would be wise to clarify if Colorado's "Make my Day" law considers an office as a dwelling and at what point an educator would have the reasonable expectation that the student intends to commit a crime or might use any physical force against someone within the dwelling. You are probably correct in stating that the the bill permitting firearms on campus does not change the conditions under which a shooting is justified. However, the bill would increase the chances under which an educator would need to know that.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 09:43 AM

4. It has been legal in Colorado for 11 years - it hasn't been a problem

Here is the list of colleges that allow it.

http://www.armedcampuses.org/colorado/

I would tell the professor that illegal guns on campus are what he should be concerned about considering the vast majority of students are too young for a CCW permit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 09:59 AM

7. you

are living in A twilight zone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #7)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 10:02 AM

9. Show me all the college students in CO shooting professors.

I live in a fact based reality. If after 10 years there is no problem then perhaps there really is no problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 10:04 AM

10. you missed the point

which is understandable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #10)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 10:11 AM

11. No - I understand the point of the OP very well

moral panic founded on ignorance by someone who doesn't like guns. It is song we hear a lot of here.

If students legally carrying guns to class was such a threat to public safety, you would be able to give me plenty of examples instead of your obtuse diversion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #11)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 10:15 AM

13. ohhh

you're still missing the point. oh boy! sigh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #13)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 10:19 AM

16. Smilies =/= logic

but then I think you know that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #16)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 12:49 PM

54. no they don't

let me try to break it down to the LOWEST common denominator for you. Weapons such as hidden guns are not necessary in the higher halls of learning. Shootouts in classrooms and on college campuses put many people at risk for no reason. The recent spate of shootings by disgruntled students are tragic. Yet hidden guns will not stop that behavior. Disgruntled and crazy usually = suicidal. So some student shooting back at the suicidal student will only add more lethal projectiles to a situation where the police and shooter are, more than likely, firing. If my logic is faulty, so be it. I stand by it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #54)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 12:51 PM

56. ok nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #54)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 05:27 PM

111. Your logic has a very basic fault to the point of being out of context.

 

This part of your logic, "add more lethal projectiles to a situation where the police and shooter are, more than likely, firing." With very rare exceptions, this is absolutely not the historical reality. It is has been almost never true. The cops almost always show up after the perp has murdered unarmed students and staff and has killed himself. The vast majority of the time LEO's are not there when murder is shooting people. To in anyway indicate that they are just magically there, already on the scene when the shots are fired is perpetrating a fantasy, fraud, untruth, and to change the known historical reality and known provable facts about school shootings.
How has a hidden gun on an armed student who is not the active shooter ever made one of these situations worse?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proudretiredvet (Reply #111)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 05:36 PM

117. look here I don't care

if you need to have access to your gun everyday. I'm saying guns under the cover of a CCW don't belong on a college campus. I don't care how many guns you have, how many time you've used the 2nd amendment to justify your gun fondling. We don't need anymore students pulling out weapons like some wild west movie. I respect that you love your gun. But that's it. Too many guns makes for chaos and mayhem. I don't care about your logic and your shooting down any part of my argument. Have fun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #117)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 05:40 PM

119. I understand that you have an opinion and I respect that you have that right.

 

BUT, you are not entitled to your own facts or to misrepresent historically provable facts and reality to try and support any point of view.
Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proudretiredvet (Reply #119)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 05:47 PM

122. You've been arguing facts against faith. It doesn't usually work

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #122)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 06:00 PM

124. That is true. And I do know the difference.

 

Every one of us has an opinion on many things. That is good, fine, and the reason we are here. But when we make statements that are factually wrong it is not incorrect for others to point it out.

As I said you are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proudretiredvet (Reply #111)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 04:40 AM

150. Wait 'til 2 students with hidden guns get confused...

... and shoot eachother just because each thought the other was the perp.

I can see that as a VERY likely side-effect of young, inexperienced gun-owners suddenly finding themselves in the midst of a shootout.

===================

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #54)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 12:41 AM

147. Your logic is faulty.

States like Idaho that issue concealed carry licenses have people lawfully carrying guns, including college students age 21 or older. For those people, every location that then forbids firearms on premises requires those ccw'ers to remove the firearm from their person and stow it. Every time you handle a firearm and store it away from your person there is a risk, however miniscule as your caution and safety practices make it, that something will go wrong (theft, negligent discharge, etc.). For the non-traditional, 25-year-old college student who works the 8 PM - 4 AM convenience store shift in a dangerous part of town, there is no logical reason why they should have to find another place for their legal ccw during their 4-7 PM class. CCW'ers commit crimes at a far lower rate than the general populace. This NYT piece on this subject was inanely worded and poorly-reasoned.

-app

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Reply #147)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 08:45 AM

154. "8pm to 4am in a dangerous part of town"

well that's off campus, usually. Nothing to do with my statement concerning concealed weapons ON CAMPUS. What is it about you 2nd amendment aficionados that you can't understand, 'no guns on campus'? The state I live in issues concealed weapons permits, fine if that's what the citizen wants to carry to feel 'safe', fine. They don't belong in the halls of higher learning. This god mentality behind carrying a loaded weapon on ones person is disgusting. This wild west mentality that has taken over our nation is sickening. The violence and unnecessary death and maiming because of a need to feel safe in the "dangerous parts of town", wonder where that is, has compelled me to speak out against all this need to carry a gun ON CAMPUS. Gunslingers of the wild west is still the mentality engendered here. Nothing else. The NYT piece is a good start in the direction of sane debate on the need to have a loaded gun on ones person ON CAMPUS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #11)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 12:04 PM

39. So....

Why are they carrying them in the 1st place? There's obviously no need to even create an accident waiting to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #39)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 12:16 PM

42. Each person is different. You would have to ask them

your life is full of accidents just waiting to happen. Most are much more likely to happen than a CCW permit holder shooting you in class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #42)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 12:32 PM

48. Each person is different.

Yeah, but they aren't in different places.... they are all on campus. So if there's no need to create such a danger, then they should just leave their weapons at home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #48)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 12:41 PM

50. ok nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 11:10 AM

29. It only takes ONCE to BE a problem.

You DON'T live in a fact-based reality. You live in a fantasy where you and your gun-totin' buds are John Wayne, Matt Dillon, or some permutation thereof.

How many dead professors or students are too many for you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #29)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 11:15 AM

30. How many college kids will die of alcohol and drugs this year?

don't we have bigger problems to deal with?

Moral panic over things that rarely happen are not the basis for sound public safety polices. Why not focus on the things that are killing the most people? CCW carriers on campus are not killing people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #30)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 11:29 AM

33. Changing the subject is the first sign of losing an argument.

Moral panic over things that rarely happen are not the basis for sound public safety polices.


Bullshit. This is a problem that can be resolved before it gets started. That's a sound safety policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #33)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 11:34 AM

36. The problem started 10 years ago in Colorado. And no one got shot.

let that fact sink in and then we will talk.

My point about alcohol is to point out how completely you have lost perspective on what the real dangers on college campuses are.

Gunz are evil. Got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #36)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 01:29 PM

67. Your point about Colorado is taken...

and brings up this point: Why do you need a gun in school? If there has been a concealed carry law in Colorado for 10 years and not one person has felt the need to pull out their gun, so then why carry it?

Paranoid?

This is just like the anti-gay law that just got shot down in Arizona. Not one proponent for the law could find a single instance where someones religious rights were being violated, so the law was passed "just in case".

Well, according to you there hasn't been a single need for a CCW on a Colorado campus, so, why bother? "Just in case?" Why make a law allowing people to carry guns where they are not needed and actually may be a detriment?

Guns have a place in society. School is not one of them. I don't carry a basketball to the Opera. Am I allowed? Yes. Do I? No because it's... stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SomethingFishy (Reply #67)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 01:34 PM

69. ok nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SomethingFishy (Reply #67)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 09:31 PM

140. And the GREAT thing about the constitution is it affords everyone that right

I understand that because YOU think it is stupid, billions MUST agree with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SomethingFishy (Reply #67)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 12:46 AM

148. I said this up-thread, but I'll say it again.

I said this up-thread, but since you asked I'll say it again. States like Idaho that issue concealed carry licenses have people lawfully carrying guns. And for those people, every location that then forbids firearms on premises requires those ccw'ers to remove the firearm from their person and stow it. Every time you handle a firearm and store it away from your person there is a risk, however miniscule as your caution and safety practices make it, that something will go wrong (theft, negligent discharge, etc.). For the non-traditional, 25-year-old college student who works the 8 PM - 4 AM convenience store shift in a dangerous part of town, there is no logical reason why they should have to find another place for their legal ccw during their 4-7 PM class. CCW'ers commit crimes at a far lower rate than the general populace. Again, the NYT piece on this subject was inanely worded and poorly-reasoned.

-app

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #33)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 11:38 AM

37. This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Zero school shootings have occurred by CCW licensees in Colorado, Utah, or anywhere else where CCW it's allowed in campus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bazinga (Reply #37)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 01:13 PM

62. Problem? I see all kinds of opportunities in the idea of guns on campus.

See my post # 58.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 10:13 AM

12. When we think of Colorado, we ***never*** think of school shootings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shootings_in_Colorado

If you cite college vs. pre-college, you're just a gun troll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #12)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 10:18 AM

15. None of which were at colleges nor by CCW permit holders

Most of the shooters in your example could no legally own guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #15)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 10:23 AM

17. Wow, it only took you 6 minutes to cite the colleges vs. pre-colleges point.

So your point is if the massacres at those schools had allowed guns, the massacres would have been okay.

Uh-huh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #17)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 10:29 AM

18. The OP is about CCW

and whether CCW represent a public safety threat. I understand your need to conflate the issue by dragging in illegal gun owners but that is not what the OP is about, is it? Because the law being discussed will have no impact on illegal gun use.

Your logic is twisted if you really think I think massacres are ok. I am merely saying that CCW holders are not the one doing the massacres. You are the one that provided me with the proof of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #18)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 10:48 AM

21. Yes. It's about Legalizing Guns in Schools. Insanity. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #21)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 10:55 AM

24. And we are back where we started

when you have more than your personal opinion, we can talk again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #18)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 10:58 AM

25. Hack, the OP is about the insanity of guns in America.

We are not at war, we are isolated, we are the only country to live with gun violence.

The happy coincidence of a culture in love with weapons and their spillage into the populace cannot be stated enough.

85 people die per day, Hack, due to gun violence. That means there will be 85 funerals today for yesterday's victims. Will you be at any of the funerals?

I will. I'm there because I'm human. Same heartbeat. It's disgusting, it's sad, it's demoralizing, it's inhuman.

You're invited, Hack, open invitation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to toby jo (Reply #25)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 11:03 AM

26. So lets regulate people that carry guns, ensuring they pass rigorous background checks

and pass a gun safety course. Oh wait - that is what the OP is about. Concealed carry permits.

CCW permit holders are not the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #26)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 11:27 AM

31. The first concept you're missing is spillage, Hack.

Both physically, in terms of theft and easy access, and psychically, in terms of "Oh, guns are good for society, they're everywhere." It becomes a mind-boggling simple expansion of a killing device.

The second concept you're missing is death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to toby jo (Reply #31)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 11:31 AM

34. Time to present some actual facts

Last edited Fri Feb 28, 2014, 02:55 PM - Edit history (1)

CCW has been around for a long time - there is real data out there. Time for you to move beyond personal opinion and moral panic and actually present some facts as to the proven harm of CCW.

Insulting me is all well and good if engaging in cultural wars is what turns you on - no skin off my back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 01:11 PM

60. Hey. This guns on campus idea could be beneficial to all concerned.

See my post # 58. The possibilities are amazing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #60)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 01:17 PM

66. Not enough potential customers

you have to be 21 to buy a gun - the demographics are all wrong.

Now a legalized marijuana store on the other hand (right next to food court)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #66)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 01:37 PM

70. Hey! I'm from Los Angeles.

Guns and kids. How could our gangs manage without them?

All said and done, it's not that hard for minors to get a hold of guns.

Look at the statistics. Look at the numbers of minors who die from gunshot wounds. In a large percentage of the cases, the kids got their guns from their parents. In fact, kids who die from gunshot wounds before the age of 10 almost always have either their own or some other kid's parents to thank for access to the death weapon.

And with university students, you are dealing with a relatively mature demographic. We aren't talking about the really young kids in high school like, say Trayvon Martin. We are talking about kids with the maturity to live on their own away from home. We are talking about kids who had the grades and the SAT scores to get accepted to college. Almost grown-up.

I wouldn't worry too much about how the kids will get possession of guns. Parents buy their college-bound kids' cars, computers, clothes and alcohol. Why not guns? Just another necessity for the college-bound crowd. Like a seasons' ticket for the football games.

Besides, if other kids on campus get to have guns, how could a loving parent refuse to buy one for his kid? Doesn't have to be in the kid's name. Is there any law against loaning your gun to your offspring? If there were, when would kids learn to shoot? Or do you think that should be a course taught on campus once the kid is old enough to buy his own? Hey! Another profit stream for the universities. Charge extra for the marksmanship classes.

When all is said and done, what responsible parent would want to send his 17-year-old daughter to a campus without a gun? If the other students are allowed to shoot their way to their college degree, wouldn't you seriously want your child to have the opportunity to do the same?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #70)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 01:39 PM

71. If you cannot differentiate between illegal underage gun owners

and legal 21 year and older gun owners who willing submit to background checks and training, I am afraid I cannot help you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #71)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 02:48 PM

85. If you cannot differentiate between humor and serious thought, well, you said it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #85)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 02:50 PM

87. It is a subject where it is sometimes hard to tell

a lot of misguided attempts at snarky sarcasm. If it was an honest attempt at humor than I apologize.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #71)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 02:53 PM

88. The Colon-Dunning-Kruger Syndrome in this thread is strong

Despite the clearly demonstrable evidence you've provided, the more dogmatic posters insist
that they "know" CCW on college campuses is dangerous

Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. He'd been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands To Reason, and was now a post-graduate student of the University of What Some Bloke In The Pub Told Me.

Terry Pratchett, Jingo


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

http://psycnet.apa.org/?fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121

"Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #71)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 07:40 PM

128. The people who can't differentiate between an illegal shooter and a legal one, are

the cops rolling up to a shooting scene and not having a clue as to who is doing the shooting.the bad guys and the good guys look the same.
To them, they are all suspects.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 09:12 PM

134. What a surprise! You should have told me you were coming.

Man, I would have gotten something in the fridge for us.

I have some beer and some Cheetos.

How's it going?

So, guns? Guns guns guns guns guns? How about guns? Gun. Gun gun gun. Gun gun gun. Huhuh ha. Gun gun gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XRubicon (Reply #134)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 09:17 PM

136. No no no - its gunz gunz gunz

didn't you get the memo?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #136)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 09:20 PM

137. hey buddy! I have a question for you

Name one progressive thing you are for.

Don't worry we won't tell your real friends.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XRubicon (Reply #137)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 09:24 PM

138. Gay marriage, equal rights, most gun control

but then you knew that because you play the same silly game on a regular basis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #138)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 09:28 PM

139. I like this game

You don't like it?

I guess you are right. It is like groundhog day with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XRubicon (Reply #139)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 09:32 PM

141. Except Bill Murray was funny

you not so much. But then zealots never are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #141)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 10:13 PM

143. Funny? did you say funny?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XRubicon (Reply #139)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 11:56 PM

146. I haven't seen much liberal in your viewpoint. Start listing:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 09:48 AM

5. Stand your ground professor.

Never let a student get the drop on you...teching math is a dangerous subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 09:52 AM

6. If he can't tell the difference between an active threat or not then, yeah, this dolt

is the last person to trust to have a gun around children. Hopefully the balance of our schools are better staffed than this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 10:15 AM

14. Are you an NRA apologist?

Not criticizing, just asking?

Did you actually read the entire op-ed? I have reason to believe all you read was the snippet in the post. If you read the entire op-ed (or even seriously read the snippet) you would understand he was asking serious questions wrapped in sarcasm. If anyone is a dolt it may be you if you didn't understand this was written sarcastically to raise a discussion on a very serious topic.

Serious questions should be raised about increasing the legal presence of firearms on campus. We are all aware that there are firearms on campus today contrary to current law.

Affirmatively legalizing carry on campus encourages carry. That fact should be subject to debate and consideration by the legislature.

I have never owned a gun and will never own a gun. My HOA prohibits firearms in the community. I would never live in a community that permitted firearms. My church will vote to prohibit guns anywhere on church property should the GA legislature legalize it.

I have nothing against the legal ownership of firearms. I think all purchases should be subject to background checks. Why the fascination with guns? I have never understood it. I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist but from the outside one plausible explanation is a sense of constant fear, cowardice, making up for other shortcomings, paranoia, etc. I am not suggesting any of those are the reason but they are certainly all plausible sources for this need for and love of guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swede Atlanta (Reply #14)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 10:42 AM

20. "Affirmatively legalizing carry on campus encourages carry."

And? If teachers can be trusted around children, what's the problem? If they can't then why are they teachers?

By the way, I'm perfectly capable of grasping sarcasm but crappy sarcasm that relies on half-truths (read: half-lies) isn't sarcasm and barely rises to the level of polemic. It's a crappy op-ed pretending to be deep-seated intellectual wit.

For example, take his ridiculous point about being of advanced years with diminished reflexes. He claims that should raise the impetus for him to get the first shot but that would be unlikely in the event of an active shooter. Dr. Redonkulous conveniently ignores the fact that he's not the only one around; yet, he imposes his personal circumstances upon all other possible actors in the scenario. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be younger, healthier and better trained.

He also presents his scenario as if a shooter would first be going for him to the exclusion of all others. Most mass-shooters simply start shooting -- and continue to do so until confronted by equal or greater force.

And, at the expense of sounding John Rambo-ish (I'm not) a good person should never want to be the first person to start shooting in a confrontation but they should always strive to be the last.

He also ignores the fact that shooters wanting to perpetrate mass shootings are looking to inflict most harm possible. That means they want to be left uninterrupted for as long as possible. That is why they choose schools and other such venues. I promise you'll see more mass shootings at gun-free zones than you'll ever see in places known for people carrying weapons.

I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a self-defense expert (or "NRA apologist" ). The technical discussions in the RKBA forum tend to leave me behind. But I even I can see the glaring fallacies in his presentation, so much so that I have to assume the only people who would actually buy into it are those who want to do so at the expense of a half moment's contemplation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swede Atlanta (Reply #14)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 10:55 AM

23. The answer is yes: Favorite group: Gun Control & RKBA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swede Atlanta (Reply #14)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 11:04 AM

28. "My church..."

 

Why the fascination with church?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swede Atlanta (Reply #14)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 01:32 PM

68. Your HOA prohibits firearms in the community?

Wow, what a nasty little Authoritarian community that is. That HOAs are to allowed in this country to engage in such behavoir is is just another reason why I hate HOAs, and would never live in one. You can really tell the character of people who get into power in these HOAs, and write all sort of rules restricting this or that behavior. You can also tell the character of people who choose to live in communities like that. Just proves a lot of Americans like to tell their neighbors how to live.

If you "would never live in a community that permitted firearms" that certainly limits your selection of places to live in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swede Atlanta (Reply #14)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 02:50 PM

86. HOA prohibits firearms

Well it may be true that your HOA prohibits firearms in the community, that rule is completely unenforceable and I doubt very seriously that there are no guns in your community unless there are, like, 4 of you.

HOA can attempt to make you follow the rules they set forth by fining you, there would be no way for them to know you have a firearm in your home unless you told them it was there. They could not come in and look for it ...

Useless rule. I would like to see the copy of that as well. Most likely reads something about common areas and such ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurker Deluxe (Reply #86)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 06:03 AM

152. Bucking the HOA edict. The moment a good guy with a gun becomes a bad guy with a gun.

See just how quickly that happens?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #152)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 09:42 AM

155. This just in: people ignore pointless, unenforceable rules.

If that makes someone a "bad guy," then virtually all of us are bad guys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swede Atlanta (Reply #14)

Sun Mar 2, 2014, 08:00 AM

166. If he's serious about self defense and personal safety, he needs to

do more research and write less "look at me" articles....it also wouldn't hurt to take a few classes.

He may come to the conclusion that instead of a G29 he's better off not carrying any self defense firearm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 12:23 PM

44. You mean like the Statie who fired on a car with children in it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 01:15 PM

63. Why worry about active or not threats. This guns-on-campus idea could change the face

of education. See my post # 58.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #6)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 12:25 PM

159. "Sarchasm"

Look it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 10:00 AM

8. but I always assumed that when they reached into their backpacks they were going for a pencil



I wouldn't assume this, and it doesn't have to be a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 10:31 AM

19. Very good article

The whole idea seems ridiculous. Insane. Stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 10:54 AM

22. K&R. The whole article is brilliant.

The problem, of course, is not that drunken frat boys will be armed; it is that they are drunken frat boys. Arming them is clearly not the issue. They would cause damage with or without guns. I would point out that urinating against a building or firing a few rounds into a sorority house are both violations of the same honor code.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #22)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 11:33 AM

35. How many states allow CCW while intoxicated?

And how many frat/sorority house are located on campus?

It seems in the one case that the circumstance is already provided for under current law, and the other would not be affected by a campus gun ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 11:03 AM

27. K & R !!!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 11:28 AM

32. I wonder how many times

the professor has been the victim of, or even been threatened with, physical violence under the current system. Surely the moral barrier to punch a professor is much lower than the one to shoot a professor. If professors are worried about violent responses to poor grades, why do we not hear about them now?

If someone is not a threat to perpetuate violence off-campus what suddenly changes to make them a threat when they cross the street onto campus? Either CCW is a threat both on campus and off, or it is a threat in neither place. There really is no reason that someone who has been vetted and licensed to carry a weapon in public off campus should not be trusted to carry on campus. Either s/he is trustworthy everywhere or s/he is not trustworthy anywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 12:06 PM

40. I expected better from a professor of criminal studies

His sarcasm is overshadowed by the intellectual dishonesty that the laws regarding use of firearms would change.
When facing his disgruntled student, what makes him believe the student has not illegally brought a gun in the back pack along with the pencil.
I am not fully behind allowing full CCW on campuses but this is a poor argument against it.

Would anyone care to address the premise he make between video games and desensitization to violence? I am ambivalent on the issue and would be interested in people's thoughts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #40)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 12:08 PM

41. You honestly don't think that if CCW is allowed on campus, more students would carry guns?

Of course, it is possible to carry guns illegally. But if it is legalized, more people will do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #41)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 12:21 PM

43. Are you proposing that allowing legal guns will result in more illegal guns?

Obviously there will be more legal guns, as there are currently none. What evidence is there that this increase in legally carried weapons will increase the number of shootings?

Why would those currently disinclined to illegally carry a weapon on campus become more inclined to carry one illegally once carrying becomes legal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bazinga (Reply #43)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 12:29 PM

47. Allowing legal guns will result in more guns, period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #47)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 12:45 PM

52. But that is obvious, what you have failed to do is show what effect more guns will have.

It is not a given that the effect will be negative. Those schools that currently allow guns on campus have a nearly perfect record. And conflating legal with illegal will only make it more difficult to show that effect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bazinga (Reply #52)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 12:47 PM

53. Well, there's plenty of evidence that more guns result in more deaths.

I'm not aware of studies of campus shootings specifically. Part of this is common sense...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #53)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 12:51 PM

55. So at best you are extrapolating.

And at worst you are disregarding evidence from campuses currently allowing CCW, so that you can hold to your "common sense" principle that guns are bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bazinga (Reply #55)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 12:55 PM

57. Like I said, there's no statistical study of campus carry that I'm aware of.

I don't know if there is enough data to form a meaningful sample. Probably not. A few dots of anecdotal evidence don't count for much outside of the NRA bubble.

There is ample evidence that generally more guns lead to more deaths. Maybe campuses are a counterexample to this. But based on the evidence and common sense, most likely they are not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #57)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 01:02 PM

59. It really comes down to whether or not CCW is safe in public.

If it is, then it should be allowed on campus. If it isn't, then it shouldn't be allowed anywhere.

Now I know you and I come down on different sides of that fence, but would you agree that it is inconsistent to allow carry off-campus but disallow it on-campus?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bazinga (Reply #59)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 01:11 PM

61. There are obvious differences between campuses and just a random street corner.

It's a little more complicated than just "in public". How about football stadiums or airports? Different locations, different circumstances.

I think the university should decide. In many cases, including apparently this one, the university leadership, campus police, and local police in the college town are opposed to the law, but it gets forced on them by the state legislature. Surely you don't agree with that the state legislature should override the opinion of the university as to what makes for a safer and more educational college environment?

I think that local police officials should be able to restrict concealed carrying in order to improve the safety of the citizens in a town. Maybe in certain rural areas it works fine to have a lot of people carrying guns, but that doesn't mean it also works in dense metropolitan areas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #61)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 02:14 PM

76. There are also obvious differences between football stadiums and airports and universities.

Namely, security. I have no problem being unarmed at an airport because I know everyone else around me had to go through a metal detector. Universities... not so much. Someone has to be responsible for my security. In the vast majority of cases that person is me, in a few cases (airports, secured government buildings, etc.) it is someone I trust to provide that security. Unfortunately, college campuses are not one of those places.

I believe private universities should have the right to ask their students to disarm as a stipulation of their enrollment. Just like a business should be able to require patrons to disarm before entering their premises. Public universities are a different matter. Unless the university leadership and police are willing to take responsibility for each and every students safety, I don't believe they have the right to determine how individuals choose to provide for that safety. Remember, someone HAS to be responsible for my safety. If the university won't allow me to be responsible, then they have to assume that responsibility.

Perhaps a compromise would be a law that requires universities to accept liability for every violent act that they fail to prevent on their campus. This should be true of any jurisdiction that denies its citizens the right to determine for themselves what measure of preparation is necessary for their safety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bazinga (Reply #76)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 02:23 PM

80. Campus police provides for the safety of the students.

Safety policy at public universities should be decided by that university, not by state legislatures. In fact, the state legislatures are getting in the way of campus police's ability to provide that safety by making laws that neither the campus police, nor the university management, nor the faculty, nor anyone else except for the gun lobby wants.

Also, the total lack of any evidence that carrying a gun makes a person safer invalidates any argument about how not allowing people to carry somehow places them at risk. Allowing other people to carry guns around is equivalent to putting my safety at risk, and the fact that I am afforded the illusion of safety by being allowed to carry a gun around as well doesn't change that.

The objective here is actual safety, and carrying a gun is not safety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #80)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 04:20 PM

95. No more than the NYPD provides for the safety of New Yorkers.

There is plenty of case law to show that the police cannot be held responsible for failing to prevent a crime against an individual unless that person is in police custody. So campus police are not actually responsible for my personal safety on campus any more than the local police are responsible for my safety when I leave campus.

University administrators and police (of public universities at least) should have no more right to prevent students from being armed than local and state governments have to prevent their citizens from being armed.

I'm not actually arguing that a gun will make you safer (at least not in this discussion). I am arguing that there is NO DIFFERENCE between CCW on campus and CCW off campus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bazinga (Reply #95)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 04:30 PM

97. Yes, more. The universities in NYC have their own campus police, on top of NYPD.

So they do provide an additional layer of protection. And the administrators and police should have the right to manage that protection as they see fit. It shouldn't be based on the political whims of state legislatures. Whether it's a public or private university doesn't matter as much as the fact that it's a university.

I live in NYC. I am very glad that the city has decided to provide for my safety by, among other things, greatly restricting the ability of people to walk around in the streets with guns. The fact that I can't sue NYPD if I become the victim of the crime doesn't mean that they aren't providing for my safety.

I'm not actually arguing that a gun will make you safer (at least not in this discussion). I am arguing that there is NO DIFFERENCE between CCW on campus and CCW off campus.

And I disagree. There is a difference. How could there not be? Whether CCW makes sense or not depends on a lot of attributes about the location. There is also a difference between CCW in NYC and CCW in West Texas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #97)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 05:04 PM

100. "And the administrators and police should have the right to manage that protection as they see fit."

What "managing that protection as they see fit" sometimes looks like:

?itok=OeV4oAzD


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Davis_pepper-spray_incident


Alleged use of excessive force by police against students and demonstrators was said to be part of a larger pattern observed within the state of California and across the United States. The Board of the Council of UC Faculty Associations said that "police violence" was used against non-violent demonstrators at UC Davis, UCLA, UC Berkeley and at a Cal State Board of Trustees meeting in Long Beach. Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York’s 8th congressional district and ranking member of the United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, sent a letter to United States Attorney General Eric Holder requesting that the United States Department of Justice investigate the actions of law enforcement during the nationwide Occupy protests to determine if the civil liberties of demonstrators and reporters were violated. According to Nadler, Occupy UC Davis was one of at least eight separate events recorded on video at Occupy demonstrations throughout the United States where "significant and unwarranted force in making arrests" occurred....

...The Board of the Council of UC Faculty Associations said that "police violence" was used against non-violent demonstrators throughout the state of California:

" This week, we have seen excessive force used against non-violent protesters at UC Berkeley, UCLA, CSU Long Beach, and UC Davis. Student, faculty and staff protesters have been pepper-sprayed directly in the eyes and mouth, beaten and shoved by batons, dragged by the arms while handcuffed, and submitted to other forms of excessive force. Protesters have been hospitalized because of injuries inflicted during these incidents. The violence was unprovoked, disproportional and excessive."


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #100)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 05:06 PM

101. And this is relevant to CCW how?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #101)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 05:10 PM

105. That's what happens when you let cops decide what's permissable

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #105)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 05:12 PM

106. Really? You think that event was the result of not having CCW?

Umm... interesting. I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #106)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 05:20 PM

107. I was referring to your deference to authority in re law enforcement on campus

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #107)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 05:23 PM

108. Aha. So it has nothing to do with CCW. That's what I thought.

So don't want allowing campus police and university officials to determine safety policy. Hmm. Interesting.

I guess you feel better with Republican legislators running the show. That would certainly fit right in with your dislike of science and scholarship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #108)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 05:32 PM

114. Rather more to do with the subject than global warming, which you've brought up twice

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024579056#post94

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024579056#post99

I'd also point out your rejection of the FBI's crime statistics.You used the term
"NRA talking points" to reject them. Do you have a peer-reviewed publication
by a criminologist showing that the FBI is cooking the numbers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #114)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 05:34 PM

115. Note to self. NRAers are not good with analogies. And use smaller words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #115)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 05:42 PM

120. Note to self: Controllers erroneously think all opponents are NRA members

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117222584

"Why I'm not going to rejoin the NRA just yet"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002467295

I'll state right off the bat that I'm not thrilled with the NRA personally, because I'm about 90% sure that despite their proclaimed non-partisan stance, they are in fact a right-wing political
movement with a bitchin gun club, like I stated here...


Also, they are prone to using periods where a colon should be used...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #97)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 06:41 PM

127. The NYPD may provide for your safety, but they certainly are not responsible for it.

And you are certainly right on the money when it comes to the whimsical nature of state legislatures. Perhaps it would be best not to leave the right of self-defense up to them at all.

I think we've come to the agree to disagree stage of the conversation. I've stated my piece, and I appreciate your thoughtful responses. I wish all RKBA discussions could be this civil.

All the best, Bazinga.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bazinga (Reply #127)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 09:04 PM

133. Good talking to you. I agree, thanks for keeping it thoughtful and civil. Cheers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bazinga (Reply #59)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 02:12 PM

75. Not only allowed on campus, but court houses, post offices, jails, bars, churches, airports, etc

Lets make everywhere safer!!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #75)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 02:15 PM

77. Many of those places provide security for the people in them.

Those that do not, should allow people to provide security for themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bazinga (Reply #77)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 02:21 PM

79. Boise State Univeristy provides security.

Or, perhaps we need a sentry in every room.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #79)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 04:27 PM

96. Campus police units provide law enforcement, not security. There is a difference. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bazinga (Reply #96)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 05:25 PM

110. "The Department is staffed with trained professional security and police officers."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #116)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 06:32 PM

126. And?

Bazinga implied that CCW was necessary for places where security wasn't provided. BSU provides security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #53)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 02:36 PM

82. Kindly show us some of that evidence, please

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #82)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 02:38 PM

83. Really? The anti-science denialism squad again? Can't you guys just use the search function?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #83)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 03:24 PM

92. Despite your ad hominem attack, you're still wrong-and I can prove it

I understand why you'd omit the most comprehensive study of violent crime around
(the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports), as they clearly show you're wrong:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1995/95sec2.pdf

The numbers for 1994

1,857,670 reported violent crimes (page 10), with a rate of 713.6/100K persons

1,113,179 reported aggravated assaults (page 31), with a rate of 427.6/100K

23,326 reported murders and nonnegligent manslaughter (page 13), with a rate of 9.0/100K

Now skip ahead 18 years, after the number of guns in the US has increased roughly 50%:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012

TOTAL ALL AGENCIES

All violent crimes 1,153,016

Aggravated assault 720,935

Murder and non negligent manslaughter 14,168

I included the aggravated assaults, just in case you decided to get cute and cite better
emergency care for the reduced murder rate (Illegally shooting someone non-fatally
counts as aggravated assault).

Which one of us is anti-science, again?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #92)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 03:26 PM

94. LOL. The UCR is raw data, it is not a study.

In order to draw conclusions from the data, one needs to analyze it statistically. And, no, cutting and pasting and repeating NRA talking points doesn't constitute statistical analysis, much less "proof". What you are doing is the equivalent of FOX News using every snowstorm as "proof" that global warming is a hoax.

Do you ever wonder why "studies" like yours end up on gun blogs, and not in peer reviewed journal? Never thought about that? Lemme guess... "liberal bias".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #94)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 04:52 PM

98. -3; your screed neglected to mention Sharia law, gays, and/or immigration

Not to mention that none of that it negates the fact that violent crime and murders have declined in the US both in raw number and in rate since 1990, even with a vast increase in the number of firearms.

If you can show that the statistics in the FBI's "Crime In The United States" reports are inaccurate,
by all means do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #98)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 04:56 PM

99. You really don't get it...

It's not that the UCR numbers are wrong, it's that they don't imply your conclusions. Is this really so complicated?

In the same way that global warming doesn't mean that it's not actually snowing. Just the fact that it's snowing doesn't mean global warming is a hoax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #99)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 05:08 PM

102. "It's not that the UCR numbers are wrong" So when is that uptick in violent crime going to happen?

And why hasn't it happened yet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #102)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 05:10 PM

104. What are you talking about? What uptick in violent crime?

I'm not following. Maybe you should actually read some of those peer reviewed studies to understand what's actually going on here. I know, you don't trust science, and don't understand statistics, but that's my best advice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #104)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 05:24 PM

109. Exactly- there *is* no uptick in violent crime, even with more guns

If someone was arguing that more guns produces a crime free utopia, you might have had a
case. As for some of those papers you linked to upthread, well....

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/Dranove/coursepages/Mgmt%20469/guns.pdf

"More Guns, More Crime"

Somebody break the news gently to Mark Duggan, the author of the above

http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/UCLF-HawaiianExperience-2005

Good on Hawaiians- but gun crime also declined in most other places...

http://www.iansa.org/system/files/Risks%20and%20Benefits%20of%20a%20Gun%20in%20the%20Home%202011.pdf

"That said, for the large majority of households, having a gun in the home
will not provide either health benefits or costs this year." (page 7)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #109)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 05:27 PM

112. Oh, I see. You need to google "ceteris paribus".

Sorry, didn't realize just how little you know...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #112)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 05:45 PM

121. "Sorry, didn't realize just how little you know.."

Fortunately, the use of snark is not a marker of political efficiacy...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #121)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 08:03 PM

130. Too bad, I thought you were actually going to look it up.

Sometimes people just don't want to learn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #41)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 12:23 PM

45. Intuition says more would caryy

And knowing responsibility of the typical college student i have misgivings. I assume the 21 age limit would apply so eliminate the most irresponsible group but the risk level wouldiwou increase.

That said, the premise of the argument is that rules governing legal use are changing. That is patently false

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #45)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 12:28 PM

46. That's not the premise of the article.

The premise is that carrying guns will become legal, and that will result in more guns on campus, which is bad. You don't really think the author is suggesting that murder is becoming legal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #46)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 12:36 PM

49. He is using the argument

That everyminor fdisagreement will lead to shots, blood on the streets everywhere. That has failed to happen every time it has been predicted.

My concern is negligence resulting in more injuries from unwise handling. Also thefts could be a major issue as i suspect many would carry the gun in the back pack. I find such lack of security abhorrent

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #49)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 12:42 PM

51. Now you're changing the argument.

And you are also exaggerating. Your original argument was that he was misinterpreting the law. That is not true.

Now you are claiming he implies that "every" disagreement will lead to shots, which he doesn't. I get that you disagree that allowing CCW on campus will cause an increase in campus shootings. That's all it is, disagreement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #51)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 03:20 PM

91. He is using both arguments

That legal use will be changing andby iimplication the escalating argument.

I do disagree it would cause an increase in shootings nut that is just my opinion. I think gun free zones are false security as most have no actual penalty to back the sign

OTH i strongly believe in property rights so if legislation mandates allowing carry without limits i would not support that either

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #40)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 01:16 PM

64. What's to be ambivalent about? This idea should be embraced fully. It could solve a lot of

the problems associated with university management. See my post # 58.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #64)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 01:52 PM

73. Sorry, I was unclear

The ambivalence I speak of is the connection between violent video games and violent actions.

Formerly I totally rejected the idea but I have read papers from people on both sides of GC with plausible arguments that the interactive nature of video games combined with realistic simulation of violence can lead to desensitization. They will not make a person violent per se but will reduce resistance in those who are prone to violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 01:01 PM

58. You know how a lot of colleges and universities have student bookstores on campus?

It's a tiny but welcome source of income for them.

Stop and think how that tiny income could explode into big bucks if we instituted a guns sales and rentals on campus movement nationwide.

We could use the money earned from those university sponsored sales and rentals of weapons for scholarships. I can see it now: "The survivors funds."

Compared to the mark-up on books, the mark-up on weapons would really make a dent in the costs of education and the recipients could be chosen based on their marksmanship skills.

And, let's be realistic. Kids are going to drink in college. Why not set up bars and saloons right on campus with all profits going to the university to ensure an even bigger profit stream for that college scholarship fund?

One advantage to this concept is that the drunk kids with their guns could have fun and puke and sprawl out drunk right on campus, right in front of their dormitories and frat houses. Not only would all the mess be concentrated in a smaller area, but the campus police could get a paddy wagon, drive it around the campus, pick up the drunk but breathing, deliver them to their classrooms, dorms and frat houses and grab the corpses and take them to an on-campus morgue. Think of the profits that could be made if you charged students for the taxi, ambulance and embalming services! Hey! We are getting into real money now.

The benefits of this plan for a sufficiently entrepreneurial university are incredible. Think how the money, in addition to the establishment of a scholarship fund, could be used to attract better football players and coaches.

Best of all, the university would be in the financial position to give its administrators a big raise. After all, the success of the program will depend on the quality of the university's leadership, and we all know that to attract the best and brightest top dogs, you have to pay well.

Another benfit: the university would be able to charge and retain the tuition money paid by the students who lose their lives in the on-campus wars without having to pay faculty to administer tests and complete grade forms .

Win, win, win, win all around. Guns and alcohol are profitable. And why shouldn't universities get their share of the money?

Finally, think beyond the university box and consider what this could do for our national GDP. Wow! The upside on this just does not quit.

Innovation. That's the key. That's the word.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #58)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 09:14 PM

135. The customer base would be too small for this to work.

Since you have to be over 21 to get a CCW permit, only half of the senior class is eligible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #135)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 06:15 AM

153. One of us misread the tone of the post. I think it was you but it might have been me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #153)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 05:00 PM

163. Could easily be me.

I am pretty sure the post was made in jest, but such posts are often taken seriously since sarcasm and the like does not carry well on DU without the explicit tags.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 01:16 PM

65. I'm a college professor.

In 32 years of teaching, I have never been threatened with physical violence. Not even once.

Guns are banned on my campus. There are no metal detectors or bag searches to pass through before entering the campus. I'm sure that someone who wanted to enter the campus with a gun in violation of the policy would have no problem doing so. This is the person I would worry about far more than the person who has been vetted and granted a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

BTW, "snark" is never a term of approbation -- just so you know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #65)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 01:42 PM

72. Not a professor of journalism I guess...

Ms. Goodyear is a staff writer for The New Yorker, and a poet, and the possessor of a gentle, almost demure prose style. Today’s best-known food writers tend to be noisy boys; her soothing sentences are a balm. Like the shy girl in the back of class whose occasional whispered utterances are masterpieces of marinated snark, she gets off a lot of vivid observations.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/books/anything-that-moves-on-food-culture-by-dana-goodyear.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #72)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 06:00 PM

123. Snark is defined by nastiness.

No matter what one is a professor of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #65)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 02:08 PM

74. Yeah, right.....

On the Internet you can claim to be anything you want depending upon what the post is about. I see your favorite group is RKBA. That's enough info for me to see you have an agenda.

I work at a University (of course like you, I have no way of proving it in my posts) and we have not only students but professors who have acted irrationally or violently and we call campus police while following procedures. Either you have just been lucky in your 32 years as a "professor" or you don't keep up with what goes on on campus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to llmart (Reply #74)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 06:08 PM

125. An agenda?

I work at a University (of course like you, I have no way of proving it in my posts) and we have not only students but professors who have acted irrationally or violently and we call campus police while following procedures. Either you have just been lucky in your 32 years as a "professor" or you don't keep up with what goes on on campus.

You don't believe me, so why should I believe you? After all, "On the Internet you can claim to be anything you want depending upon what the post is about." So I'll just call bullshit on your claim as you called bullshit on mine.

I don't know where you "work," but your purported experience is nothing like mine. If it is in fact true, I suggest that you seek safer employment.

I see your favorite group is RKBA. That's enough info for me to see you have an agenda.

An agenda? What do you think the writer of the article in the OP has? What do you think YOU have? Am I supposed to believe you're objective?

Genetic fallacy = total loss of credibility. Agenda? Puh-leeze ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 02:17 PM

78. Related to the topic / further reading - here is a thread from last month discussing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 02:45 PM

84. Like moths to a flame...

The Second Amendment absolutists are absolutely outraged that anyone would seek to deny them an opportunity carry their guns anywhere, and everywhere. But of course that was to be expected wasn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #84)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 02:56 PM

89. Plenty of grabbers here with their moral panic

But of course that was to be expected wasn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #89)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 03:25 PM

93. And we're "bad" for not going along with it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 05:09 PM

103. Well, if it's a white professor in Florida and a Black/Brown student -- we know what will happen.

And the NRA and gun fanciers will just shrug it off as the price we must pay for them to walk around a gun in their pants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 05:28 PM

113. Sigh.

The UA (University of Alaska) regents gave a big no to CCW on campus. Now our right wing nutjob bunch in the State Legislature has decided they want it legal anyway.

Sigh. The students agreed with the regents. But the Tea Party didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 05:36 PM

118. Every state that I know of makes you take classes that teach this exact information

 

We are talking about teaching you exactly when you can shoot and what your responsibilities are in doing so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 08:17 PM

131. I find it interesting that this college teacher

has been teaching criminal studies and is apparently unaware that warning shots are not legal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 08:53 PM

132. Nice to see that "The Onion" has competition!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 10:04 PM

142. My preferred gun...

With a Howitzer, it's always Open Carry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nikto (Reply #142)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 11:22 PM

144. wtf kind of post is that?

It can only leave one thinking you have serious issues with a particular body part.

Do you feel macho now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 11:34 PM

145. The students who fall asleep in class.

It will keep the rest of them on their toes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 02:50 AM

149. Just a thought:

If I were a student on a campus that allowed CCW, it would probably
be in my best interest to assume that everyone is carrying a gun --
sort of a "universal precaution". And if I ignore this reality, I would do
so at my own peril, whether I have a gun or not.

It's not exactly the kind of world in which I would wish to live. The
proliferation of guns only increases the level of fear, paranoia and the
risk of being shot. More guns never equals more safety. It results in
more fear and more violence. Gun proliferation is exactly what this
type of law encourages.

One more thought: I was watching the movie "Crash" just two days
ago. There is a scene where a young, black man (Don Cheadle's brother)
is shot by an off-duty police officer who became angry and suspicious of
this man and shot him because, he believed, he was reaching in his
pocket to pull out a gun. Turns out, he was reaching for a dashboard
Jesus figurine. Ooops! fear, anger, racism and an overreaction leads to
death by gunshot.

Happiness is a warm gun, mama.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_Klonopin (Reply #149)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 10:07 AM

156. There are people illegally carrying guns on campus everyday

so you are living in that world right now.

If you are that concerned about school shootings then allowing CCW on campus is the least of your worries. If some one wants to shoot up a school then a law or a "gun free campus" sign is not going to stop them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #156)

Sun Mar 2, 2014, 04:33 AM

164. Isn't that argument just a regurgitated NRA talking point...

The fallacious argument that "If a criminal with a gun can shoot you anywhere at
any time, then gun restriction laws are pointless and useless ?" These arguments
don't dissuade me.

The person who has a gun is probably more likely to shoot someone than the person
who doesn't have a gun.

The main points of my post, again:

1) CCW laws promote, encourage, (whatever) the PROLIFERATION of guns.

2) Proliferation of guns = more violence, less safety ; more paranoia, less security.

I would prefer to NOT live in that kind of world, and therefore I am against any
new laws that promote this epidemic of guns, guns, guns -- such as CCW and Stand
Your Ground laws. My worry is that the chances that we will become either a gun-
violence perpetrator or a gun-violence victim will just keep on increasing. At what
percentage will gun violence be deemed "intolerable" ?

So, I don't think we are going to agree on this.

"All we are saying, is give peas a chance ....."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to King_Klonopin (Reply #164)

Sun Mar 2, 2014, 07:40 AM

165. No - because actual facts say otherwise

Violent crime has fallen steadily for 20 years. We have cut our murder rate in half during that period. There is hard evidence showing that CCW permit holders commit crimes at at rate significantly lower than the rest of society.

it is telling that all you have is moral panic and insults without a single link to verifiable facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 05:54 AM

151. Sick society.

When I was in school, the idea of allowing students to carry concealed weapons on campus was unfathomable. I'll bet that even the most radical right winger couldn't imagine it. The entire country is turning into a horror novel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 10:07 AM

157. Lets look at an environment where everyone carrys a weapon and see what happens

My experience with this would be Vietnam. Most of he people I hung out with there carried their automatic weapons openly in the streets of Saigon - except that the DOD did not allow noncombatants like myself to have a gun. The rational here was that folks who have not gone through combat training were more of a danger to their peers when they carried a gun than those who had training. But even highly trained soldiers in combat shoot each other accidentally more than the DOD would like. So does a few hours of gun training equal combat training? And what are the consequences in a high stress situation? Based on the extensive experience of the DOD it is disaster. Apparently the police forces around the country agree with this.

So fewer guns equal fewer accidents according to the people with the most experience with them. These folks could be considered the "Militia' referred to by the second amendment. So why does the NRA support lots of individual gun owners rather than a highly trained militia? They are actually a lobby for gun manufacturers and gun sellers not gun owners. Like every thing else in America its about the profit. And the NRA is another scam using fear to make the environment more profitable for their actual corporate constituents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kmlisle (Reply #157)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 12:16 PM

158. CCW has been around for a long time. There are real facts on record

instead of basing policy on personal war stories, why don't we base them on actual facts?

Can you show that increased CCW has actual led to increase in gun violence? Can you show that CCW permit holders are more likely to commit violent acts than non-permit holders?

Let move the discussion into the realm of real facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #158)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 12:28 PM

160. DOD policy is not based on real facts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kmlisle (Reply #160)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 12:32 PM

161. As a 20 year Navy veteran I have often had my doubts.

please show me the facts that the DoD used to formulate that war zone policy. Then we can compare it to the facts we have about 20 years of CCW use by civilians in America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Mar 1, 2014, 12:35 PM

162. About Greg Hampikian

No, he is not a wannabe Bill O'Reilly.

He is not a professor of criminal justice, but of biology.

He is considered one of the foremost forensic DNA experts in the United States and provided expert witness testimony at the Amanda Knox trial.

He's the founder and director of the Idaho Innocence Project, and helped establish the Georgia Innocence Project, the Irish Innocence Project, and the Innocence Project France.

It's ludicrous that so many on DU of all places are unable to distinguish between sarcasm and a Charles Krauthammer piece.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread