They have surely brought honor upon their university. As an Aggie Dad...yep, just what we thought. The pictures are priceless. I particularly like the pic of the gal with the giant "case." Wow.
UT students protesting Campus Carry with adult sex toys
AUSTIN (KXAN) — As if the first day of college isn’t stressful enough, when classes resumed at the University of Texas Wednesday, students and staff were met with an influx of protests and rallies regarding campus carry, which was implemented earlier this month.
The first protest began at 8 a.m. with students carrying around adult sex toys in protest of the new law allowing concealed carry on campus. The group, Cocks not Glocks, is asking anyone against the concealed carry law to wear them on their backpacks through Labor Day.
“It’s supposed to be a safe space but I don’t feel safe,” Mia Barrera, a sophomore UT student said of campus carry. “Why give them guns? Especially when a school is supposed to be a safe place. It doesn’t feel very safe knowing that there are kids who can bring guns on campus.”
In direct response to that protest, Open Carry Texas carried clocks in favor of Campus Carry. They say students shouldn’t waste their time protesting instead they should focus on getting to class on time.
At noon, Rally to Resist met on the West Mall. Several speakers were present to speak out against the law as part of the group Gun Free UT. State Representative Elliott Naishtat, Austin Council Member Kathie Tovo and two professors who are suing for their right to say no to guns in classrooms also spoke out.
“Guns don’t make him safe or they don’t make any of us safer in any circumstance and the reason we know that it’s because we’re researchers and we consult the data,” said Lisa Moore, one of the professor listed as a plaintiff in a suit against the UT, the University president and the Texas Attorney General.
She and Mia Carter, two of the plaintiffs, spoke during the rally.
“I think this is going to be a long battle and there is no time to get mopey and discouraged about it,” Carter says. The professors’ suit was blocked by a federal judge earlier this week.
In addition to getting prepared for campus carry over the summer, UT officials also made safety and security improvements to campus as a result of the murder of Haruka Weiser in April. Right now the Department of Public Safety is reviewing ways to improve safety through lighting, security cameras, and access into buildings. Over the last few months, additional electronic systems to access buildings were installed. So far 70 out of 164 buildings have been upgraded.
This year school officials are also encouraging students to always walk with a friend at night, call UTPD to have their van shuttle them to different areas of campus, or call SureWalk.
“That was expanded over the summer time to include a golf cart as well as working 7 days a week from dusk until 2:30 in the morning to walk people around campus,” said Bob Harkins, Associate VP of Safety and Security at UT.
What Campus Carry Allows
People who have a license to carry will be allowed to carry on campus and into campus buildings (the handgun still needs to be concealed)
It will still be illegal to display a firearm in campus buildings as well as campus streets, sidewalks, etc.
Minimum age for obtaining a license to carry is 21
“Campus” means all land and buildings owned or leased by a public or private institution of higher education.
Schools may establish their own rules and regulations regarding “safe zones” and how students store their handguns in dormitories
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I guess the privilege to carry a clock into school in good ol Texas may all depend on what suntan you were born with...
1. What does a clock have to do with it? You know it was a stunt right? 2. That kid's family went off to the GC states, didn't like it came back, and have now sued for $15mm.
In response to the anti-campus carry Cocks Not GLOCKs campaign on display today at the University of Texas-Austin today, Students for Concealed Carry would like it to be known that they fully intend to coexist with their fellow hoplophobic students and faculty members. They’ve issued the following press release:
AUSTIN, TX – In keeping with the organization’s long-held position that individuals should enjoy the same rights on college campuses as virtually everywhere else, Students for Concealed Carry fully endorses the burgeoning movement of Texas college students who wish to openly carry oversized dildos on campus. Brian Bensimon, SCC director for the state of Texas, commented, “If carrying a phallus to class helps you express yourself, go for it. We welcome this demonstration that freedom of speech and concealed carry of handguns can coexist on the same campus.”
SCC does recommend, however, that students use their dildos for political or recreational purposes only. Using a dildo as a defensive weapon could classify it as a “club,” which, under Texas law, is illegal to carry in public and constitutes a felony if carried into a building on campus. Bensimon added, “Although SCC’s opinion shouldn’t be taken as legal advice, we feel that Texas students are on pretty solid legal ground as long as they use their dildos only as expressions of free speech or for the manufacturers’ intended purpose.”
In response to the anti-campus carry Cocks Not GLOCKs campaign on display today at the University of Texas-Austin today, Students for Concealed Carry would like it to be known that they fully intend to coexist with their fellow hoplophobic students and faculty members. They’ve issued the following press release:
AUSTIN, TX – In keeping with the organization’s long-held position that individuals should enjoy the same rights on college campuses as virtually everywhere else, Students for Concealed Carry fully endorses the burgeoning movement of Texas college students who wish to openly carry oversized dildos on campus. Brian Bensimon, SCC director for the state of Texas, commented, “If carrying a phallus to class helps you express yourself, go for it. We welcome this demonstration that freedom of speech and concealed carry of handguns can coexist on the same campus.”
SCC does recommend, however, that students use their dildos for political or recreational purposes only. Using a dildo as a defensive weapon could classify it as a “club,” which, under Texas law, is illegal to carry in public and constitutes a felony if carried into a building on campus. Bensimon added, “Although SCC’s opinion shouldn’t be taken as legal advice, we feel that Texas students are on pretty solid legal ground as long as they use their dildos only as expressions of free speech or for the manufacturers’ intended purpose.”
See, here's one thing in that paragraph that really doesn't make sense.
If a pair of these people were to be attacked, on whom was carrying a dildo, and one carrying a gun, and used said items to defend themselves, the person using the dildo would be arrest due to use of an illegal weapon.
Using a gun as a weapon is fine, but a dildo isn't? What the feth?!
Actually, Texas used to have laws more strictly regulating sex toys than firearms- their sale was banned. Until the courts struck it down in 2008 (Fun Fact: Ted Cruz was the Solicitor General who proudly defended the Texas law). Keep in mind, this is also the state that had the "honor" of being told by the Supreme Court that no, you can't make sex between two men criminal).
See, in Texas, the only part of the Constitution that seems to matter is the 2nd Amendment. 1st and 14th? Not so much....
So there is some backstory here. Also, Austin is pretty much the center of liberal thought in Texas, so there is that.
1. What does a clock have to do with it? You know it was a stunt right?
2. That kid's family went off to the GC states, didn't like it came back, and have now sued for $15mm.
In direct response to that protest, Open Carry Texas carried clocks in favor of Campus Carry. They say students shouldn’t waste their time protesting instead they should focus on getting to class on time.
The Ahmed Mohamed clock incident occurred when a 14-year-old boy, Ahmed Mohamed, was arrested on September 14, 2015, at MacArthur High School in Irving, Texas, for bringing an alleged hoax bomb to school. The incident ignited allegations of racial profiling and Islamophobia from media and commentators.
Mohamed had reassembled the parts of a scrapped digital clock in a pencil case, and brought it to school to show his teachers. His English teacher thought the clock resembled a bomb, and she confiscated it and reported him to the school's principal. Local law enforcement was called and Mohamed was questioned by police for an hour and a half. After being handcuffed and taken into custody, and without being allowed to see his parents, he was transported to a juvenile detention facility where he was fingerprinted and his mug shot photograph was taken. He was then released to his parents. The reason for his arrest was allegedly for purposely trying to cause a bomb scare. The case was not pursued further by juvenile justice authorities; however, Mohamed was suspended from school.
If a pair of these people were to be attacked, on whom was carrying a dildo, and one carrying a gun, and used said items to defend themselves, the person using the dildo would be arrest due to use of an illegal weapon.
Using a gun as a weapon is fine, but a dildo isn't? What the feth?!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: This is what I like about the USA - even the amendments occasionally battle each other to the death, which in this instance, is 1st Vs. 2nd.
Where do you see the conflict between the 1st and 2nd here?
In response to the anti-campus carry Cocks Not GLOCKs campaign on display today at the University of Texas-Austin today, Students for Concealed Carry would like it to be known that they fully intend to coexist with their fellow hoplophobic students and faculty members. They’ve issued the following press release:
AUSTIN, TX – In keeping with the organization’s long-held position that individuals should enjoy the same rights on college campuses as virtually everywhere else, Students for Concealed Carry fully endorses the burgeoning movement of Texas college students who wish to openly carry oversized dildos on campus. Brian Bensimon, SCC director for the state of Texas, commented, “If carrying a phallus to class helps you express yourself, go for it. We welcome this demonstration that freedom of speech and concealed carry of handguns can coexist on the same campus.”
SCC does recommend, however, that students use their dildos for political or recreational purposes only. Using a dildo as a defensive weapon could classify it as a “club,” which, under Texas law, is illegal to carry in public and constitutes a felony if carried into a building on campus. Bensimon added, “Although SCC’s opinion shouldn’t be taken as legal advice, we feel that Texas students are on pretty solid legal ground as long as they use their dildos only as expressions of free speech or for the manufacturers’ intended purpose.”
See, here's one thing in that paragraph that really doesn't make sense.
If a pair of these people were to be attacked, on whom was carrying a dildo, and one carrying a gun, and used said items to defend themselves, the person using the dildo would be arrest due to use of an illegal weapon.
Using a gun as a weapon is fine, but a dildo isn't? What the feth?!
Well, one is an object that is permitted under the Second Amendment because it is clearly covered by the right to keep and bear arms. The other is an object of which the primary purpose is sexual stimulation, and is covered by a state law that makes it a misdemeanor punishable by a $500 fine to intentionally make an “obscene display or distribution.” http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.43.htm
Also UT has rules in place which prohibits the display of any “visual image” associated with obscenity, which would cover the dildo protest. So there are some nuances to consider before you try to equate a firearm and a sex toy used as an improvised club.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Well, one is an object that is permitted under the Second Amendment because it is clearly covered by the right to keep and bear arms. The other is an object of which the primary purpose is sexual stimulation, and is covered by a state law that makes it a misdemeanor punishable by a $500 fine to intentionally make an “obscene display or distribution.” http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.43.htm
Also UT has rules in place which prohibits the display of any “visual image” associated with obscenity, which would cover the dildo protest. So there are some nuances to consider before you try to equate a firearm and a sex toy used as an improvised club.
Just because law is so now doesn't mean it's good. I mean for christ sake lethal weapon is fine but toy for most natural thing is not? Crazy morality there.
jmurph wrote: Actually, Texas used to have laws more strictly regulating sex toys than firearms- their sale was banned. Until the courts struck it down in 2008 (Fun Fact: Ted Cruz was the Solicitor General who proudly defended the Texas law).
It led to the best moment of the Republican primary;
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Well, one is an object that is permitted under the Second Amendment because it is clearly covered by the right to keep and bear arms. The other is an object of which the primary purpose is sexual stimulation, and is covered by a state law that makes it a misdemeanor punishable by a $500 fine to intentionally make an “obscene display or distribution.” http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.43.htm
Also UT has rules in place which prohibits the display of any “visual image” associated with obscenity, which would cover the dildo protest. So there are some nuances to consider before you try to equate a firearm and a sex toy used as an improvised club.
Just because law is so now doesn't mean it's good. I mean for christ sake lethal weapon is fine but toy for most natural thing is not? Crazy morality there.
Are there trigger warnings on these displays? I need my safe space!
In actuality it would only be comparable if the D's were concealed. Open display of a firearm on campus is illegal except for police and other authorized officers.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Well, one is an object that is permitted under the Second Amendment because it is clearly covered by the right to keep and bear arms. The other is an object of which the primary purpose is sexual stimulation, and is covered by a state law that makes it a misdemeanor punishable by a $500 fine to intentionally make an “obscene display or distribution.” http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.43.htm
Also UT has rules in place which prohibits the display of any “visual image” associated with obscenity, which would cover the dildo protest. So there are some nuances to consider before you try to equate a firearm and a sex toy used as an improvised club.
Just because law is so now doesn't mean it's good. I mean for christ sake lethal weapon is fine but toy for most natural thing is not? Crazy morality there.
The lethal weapon is a constitutionally protected right. Sex toys are not. Also sex toys are allowed, you just can't use them for a display of an obscene "visual image", so using them in the privacy of your own home for most natural thing is perfectly fine and legal. Public displays, not so much.
Also legality (which I am limiting my discussion to) =/= morality
In actuality it would only be comparable if the D's were concealed. Open display of a firearm on campus is illegal except for police and other authorized officers.
Which is actually the case here. Displaying a weapon could get you a brandishing charge and does break school rules.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Well, one is an object that is permitted under the Second Amendment because it is clearly covered by the right to keep and bear arms. The other is an object of which the primary purpose is sexual stimulation, and is covered by a state law that makes it a misdemeanor punishable by a $500 fine to intentionally make an “obscene display or distribution.” http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.43.htm
Also UT has rules in place which prohibits the display of any “visual image” associated with obscenity, which would cover the dildo protest. So there are some nuances to consider before you try to equate a firearm and a sex toy used as an improvised club.
Just because law is so now doesn't mean it's good. I mean for christ sake lethal weapon is fine but toy for most natural thing is not? Crazy morality there.
The lethal weapon is a constitutionally protected right. Sex toys are not. Also sex toys are allowed, you just can't use them for a display of an obscene "visual image", so using them in the privacy of your own home for most natural thing is perfectly fine and legal. Public displays, not so much.
Also legality (which I am limiting my discussion to) =/= morality
Yes as I said it's legal. Doesn't make it right. Stupid to value guns as more right to have around than sex toy. One is easily used to kill people, one is toy for very natural thing. The whole violence is okay but sex is not is silly and stupid. Guns are the ones that have no place in public. Not sex toys.
Yes as I said it's legal. Doesn't make it right. Stupid to value guns as more right to have around than sex toy. One is easily used to kill people, one is toy for very natural thing. The whole violence is okay but sex is not is silly and stupid. Guns are the ones that have no place in public. Not sex toys.
Stupid in your mind, but not in the eyes of folks who understand our constitution.
Yes as I said it's legal. Doesn't make it right. Stupid to value guns as more right to have around than sex toy. One is easily used to kill people, one is toy for very natural thing. The whole violence is okay but sex is not is silly and stupid. Guns are the ones that have no place in public. Not sex toys.
Stupid in your mind, but not in the eyes of folks who understand our constitution.
Considering that Freedom of speech is in the Constitution...Having dildos in public is quite constitutional. Also nifty that freedom of speech doesn't have a well-regulated rider attached to it. Hmmm...
Besides, part of the discussion was based on the statement from the gun club that clubs are illegal. I would think that since clubs are 'arms' that they would be as protected as firearms.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Well, one is an object that is permitted under the Second Amendment because it is clearly covered by the right to keep and bear arms. The other is an object of which the primary purpose is sexual stimulation, and is covered by a state law that makes it a misdemeanor punishable by a $500 fine to intentionally make an “obscene display or distribution.” http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.43.htm
Also UT has rules in place which prohibits the display of any “visual image” associated with obscenity, which would cover the dildo protest. So there are some nuances to consider before you try to equate a firearm and a sex toy used as an improvised club.
Just because law is so now doesn't mean it's good. I mean for christ sake lethal weapon is fine but toy for most natural thing is not? Crazy morality there.
The lethal weapon is a constitutionally protected right. Sex toys are not. Also sex toys are allowed, you just can't use them for a display of an obscene "visual image", so using them in the privacy of your own home for most natural thing is perfectly fine and legal. Public displays, not so much.
Also legality (which I am limiting my discussion to) =/= morality
Yes as I said it's legal. Doesn't make it right. Stupid to value guns as more right to have around than sex toy. One is easily used to kill people, one is toy for very natural thing. The whole violence is okay but sex is not is silly and stupid. Guns are the ones that have no place in public. Not sex toys.
No you are not getting it. Both are legal. Carrying around D's marching just makes your university look stupid and your parents extremely angry to be spending VAST sums of money for you to go there.
Yes as I said it's legal. Doesn't make it right. Stupid to value guns as more right to have around than sex toy. One is easily used to kill people, one is toy for very natural thing. The whole violence is okay but sex is not is silly and stupid. Guns are the ones that have no place in public. Not sex toys.
Stupid in your mind, but not in the eyes of folks who understand our constitution.
Considering that Freedom of speech is in the Constitution...Having dildos in public is quite constitutional. Also nifty that freedom of speech doesn't have a well-regulated rider attached to it. Hmmm...
Besides, part of the discussion was based on the statement from the gun club that clubs are illegal. I would think that since clubs are 'arms' that they would be as protected as firearms.
There are and have been obscenity and 'lewd acts' laws. But you know that.
I was replying specifically to the idea that it is 'stupid to value guns as more right to have than sex toy'. Freedom of political speech generally has nothing to do with sex toys. In this specific case the kids and their faculty are using them in political speech, and are allowed to do so and SHOULD be allowed to do so. Yet guns are very much part of the second amendment. You can wave your rubber cock all day to protest and lament that fact, but it is a fact. Because it is a fact, it is not 'stupid' to value the possession of guns.
I have no problem with people at school carrying around dongs, dildos, vibrators, magic butterflies, pink rabbits, double plungers, butt plugs, anal beads, John Holmes Life-Like replicas, true-skin/rubber/glass models, inflatables, penis pumps, strap-ons, micros, macros, fleshlights, or even Gianna Michaels life-like Privates masturbaters.
kronk wrote: I have no problem with people at school carrying around dongs, dildos, vibrators, magic butterflies, pink rabbits, double plungers, butt plugs, anal beads, John Holmes Life-Like replicas, true-skin/rubber/glass models, inflatables, penis pumps, strap-ons, micros, macros, fleshlights, or even Gianna Michaels life-like Privates masturbaters.
I had a point, but I forget what it was, now.
Brings a whole new meaning to the school orientation.
Yes as I said it's legal. Doesn't make it right. Stupid to value guns as more right to have around than sex toy. One is easily used to kill people, one is toy for very natural thing. The whole violence is okay but sex is not is silly and stupid. Guns are the ones that have no place in public. Not sex toys.
Stupid in your mind, but not in the eyes of folks who understand our constitution.
Considering that Freedom of speech is in the Constitution...Having dildos in public is quite constitutional. Also nifty that freedom of speech doesn't have a well-regulated rider attached to it. Hmmm...
Besides, part of the discussion was based on the statement from the gun club that clubs are illegal. I would think that since clubs are 'arms' that they would be as protected as firearms.
There are and have been obscenity and 'lewd acts' laws. But you know that.
I was replying specifically to the idea that it is 'stupid to value guns as more right to have than sex toy'. Freedom of political speech generally has nothing to do with sex toys. In this specific case the kids and their faculty are using them in political speech, and are allowed to do so and SHOULD be allowed to do so. Yet guns are very much part of the second amendment. You can wave your rubber cock all day to protest and lament that fact, but it is a fact. Because it is a fact, it is not 'stupid' to value the possession of guns.
Considering that the first doesn't have a well regulated clause I'd say dildos are more constitutionally protected than firearms. Plus even non-political speech is free.
Besides the fact that the person you were replying to mentioned both were legal...they just had an opinion that wanting to carry a gun is stupid. Throwing the Constitution in their face is ridiculous in this case as the 2nd amendment no where says that other people can't consider you an idiot for abusing this right...
Not to mention that having the right to do something doesn't automatically make it a smart thing to do.
We all have the right to spend all our money on an extensive collection of chocolate teapots but that doesn't make doing so a smart move. It also doesn't make it not stupid to value your massive collection of chocolate teapots.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Not to mention that having the right to do something doesn't automatically make it a smart thing to do.
We all have the right to spend all our money on an extensive collection of chocolate teapots but that doesn't make doing so a smart move. It also doesn't make it not stupid to value your massive collection of chocolate teapots.
Thats my point. They have the right to protest. The manner they are protesting in is infantile and beneath a top ten/top 20 university.
In the words of the immortal bard: Gig 'em Aggies.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Not to mention that having the right to do something doesn't automatically make it a smart thing to do.
We all have the right to spend all our money on an extensive collection of chocolate teapots but that doesn't make doing so a smart move. It also doesn't make it not stupid to value your massive collection of chocolate teapots.
Thats my point. They have the right to protest. The manner they are protesting in is infantile and beneath a top ten/top 20 university.
In the words of the immortal bard: Gig 'em Aggies.
Feeling the need to open carry is just as infantile...
Considering that the first doesn't have a well regulated clause I'd say dildos are more constitutionally protected than firearms. Plus even non-political speech is free.
Besides the fact that the person you were replying to mentioned both were legal...they just had an opinion that wanting to carry a gun is stupid. Throwing the Constitution in their face is ridiculous in this case as the 2nd amendment no where says that other people can't consider you an idiot for abusing this right...
The "well regulated" part of the Second Amendment doesn't mean what you think it means. "Well regulated" in the late 1700's meant "properly functioning" . Just like "A moment of privacy" meant you needed to take a dump.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Not to mention that having the right to do something doesn't automatically make it a smart thing to do.
We all have the right to spend all our money on an extensive collection of chocolate teapots but that doesn't make doing so a smart move. It also doesn't make it not stupid to value your massive collection of chocolate teapots.
Thats my point. They have the right to protest. The manner they are protesting in is infantile and beneath a top ten/top 20 university.
In the words of the immortal bard: Gig 'em Aggies.
Feeling the need to open carry is just as infantile...
It's not open carry. That would be illegal on campus. They have concealed carry. According to the FBI concealed carry individuals are the least likely persons to commit a crime. That's approximately 1/37 the national average, 1/6 that of a police officer, and slightly less than an Amish.
Frazzled wrote: I thought so, but I was desperately trying to keep you from looking utterly ignorant of the the topic and the actual law.
I think you are showing your ignorance of the law...as the law has no bearing in how you are perceived. You can act like a child and tote your gun around. It may not be illegal but it sure makes you look infintile.
The law as been pointed out is about carrying concealed. The vast majority of the students there will never know who is carrying and only a small number of them will anyway.
Frazzled wrote: I thought so, but I was desperately trying to keep you from looking utterly ignorant of the the topic and the actual law.
I think you are showing your ignorance of the law...as the law has no bearing in how you are perceived. You can act like a child and tote your gun around. It may not be illegal but it sure makes you look infintile.
We'll try it one more time (belts out like a drunken OReilly on Star Trek).
The law and the issue they are protesting about is CONCEALED carry of a pistol. You are talking about OPEN carry of a pistol which continues to NOT BE LEGAL.
We are agreed that what you are talking about is infantile, and illegal, however its not what they are protesting. If you wish to add in additional things that are infantile well thats cool and you should start another thread about it, but on this one its trolling and will be reported because it has nothing to do with the issue.
tneva82 wrote: Yes as I said it's legal. Doesn't make it right. Stupid to value guns as more right to have around than sex toy. One is easily used to kill people, one is toy for very natural thing. The whole violence is okay but sex is not is silly and stupid. Guns are the ones that have no place in public. Not sex toys.
As a native European who moved to America I understand that guns, and the laws and culture associated with them are different to what most Europeans are used to. And that's ok. Every country has a right to decide their own laws and cultures.
You can argue that "[s]tupid to value guns as more right to have around than sex toy", but that ignores that;
- guns are a constitutionally protected right
- in the state of Texas owning a sex toy is not a crime
- in the state of Texas openly displaying a firearm (unless a LEO, etc.) is a crime, as is the open display of a dildo
- no one except you is arguing that violence is ok and that sex is not
Besides, part of the discussion was based on the statement from the gun club that clubs are illegal. I would think that since clubs are 'arms' that they would be as protected as firearms.
I am all for that. Texas non-gun weapon laws are fairly poor.
As a CHLer heading to one of the UT schools very soon, I have been watching this hand wringing for a while and I can't help but laugh/cry. At least the UT carry guidelines no longer require you have to carry with an empty chamber.
The vast majority of the students there will never know who is carrying and only a small number of them will anyway.
This. I think a lot of folks (especially the protestors) don`t realize how small a population we are talking about.
Yes it was, only for semiautos though (?!?!) revolvers didn't seem to be included. That idiocy is thankfully gone.
The requirement for a holster that completely covers the triggerguard is still in, but that actually makes SENSE. (Though I have to have aliengear make me a couple custom shells now.)
SOFDC wrote: Yes it was, only for semiautos though (?!?!) revolvers didn't seem to be included. That idiocy is thankfully gone.
The requirement for a holster that completely covers the triggerguard is still in, but that actually makes SENSE. (Though I have to have aliengear make me a couple custom shells now.)
The holster requirement does make sense, and I don't know anyone who would have a problem with that. The no round in the chamber is ridiculous though. That's like one or two steps removed from saying "no ghost guns."
I can't remember where I read it, but I think someone did the projected math on how many students would be armed on campus. It's actually very few.
In order to be armed you need to have your permit, which means you need to be 21, a legal resident of the US, a resident of Texas or a state that has a permit Texas recognizes, not have a drug conviction, not have been institutionalized, not have been charged with domestic violence, not have a restraining order, not too many DUI's.
That means that with a student body of 50,000 only 9,000 would even be eligible to get a permit. Only 2% of those polled said they would be interested in getting a permit, so that look like 180 people. Even if you are permitted to carry, it doesn't mean you will. Statistics say only 1/5 of people with permits actually carry.
So, it looks like there will be 36 guns on campus.
SOFDC wrote: At least the UT carry guidelines no longer require you have to carry with an empty chamber.
Ugh. That was a real thing previously?
As someone who knows next to nothing about guns, does that mean that guns would have to be unloaded (no ammunition in weapon) or simply not "cocked" (loaded but not able to fire until you chamber a round)?
The first one is a little stupid (if you do have to have one, it's useless without ammo), but the second one could make sense as a safety thing, assuming that's what it means. It's just pulling back the slide on most pistols, right? You should be able to do that while you draw it I think.
As someone who knows next to nothing about guns, does that mean that guns would have to be unloaded (no ammunition in weapon) or simply not "cocked" (loaded but not able to fire until you chamber a round)?
The first one is a little stupid (if you do have to have one, it's useless without ammo), but the second one could make sense as a safety thing, assuming that's what it means. It's just pulling back the slide on most pistols, right? You should be able to do that while you draw it I think.
It is the second. And no, you cannot easily and quickly (and safely) pull back the slide while drawing your pistol.
Go to a range that rents guns and give it a try, you'll see what I mean. The VERY vast majority of modern pistols are safe to carry with a round in the chamber.
SOFDC wrote: At least the UT carry guidelines no longer require you have to carry with an empty chamber.
Ugh. That was a real thing previously?
As someone who knows next to nothing about guns, does that mean that guns would have to be unloaded (no ammunition in weapon) or simply not "cocked" (loaded but not able to fire until you chamber a round)?
The first one is a little stupid (if you do have to have one, it's useless without ammo), but the second one could make sense as a safety thing, assuming that's what it means. It's just pulling back the slide on most pistols, right? You should be able to do that while you draw it I think.
Indeed. In the wild west many people carried their six shooter with only five rounds loaded and the hammer sitting on the empty chamber as it was possible for the hammer to strike the firing pin of the round with enough force to fire the bullet just by dropping the gun on the floor.
Now of course modern firearms are much safer but it does show that there can be legitimate reasons to carry your weapon with an empty chamber.
As someone who knows next to nothing about guns, does that mean that guns would have to be unloaded (no ammunition in weapon) or simply not "cocked" (loaded but not able to fire until you chamber a round)?
The first one is a little stupid (if you do have to have one, it's useless without ammo), but the second one could make sense as a safety thing, assuming that's what it means. It's just pulling back the slide on most pistols, right? You should be able to do that while you draw it I think.
It is the second. And no, you cannot easily and quickly (and safely) pull back the slide while drawing your pistol.
Go to a range that rents guns and give it a try, you'll see what I mean. The VERY vast majority of modern pistols are safe to carry with a round in the chamber.
SOFDC wrote: At least the UT carry guidelines no longer require you have to carry with an empty chamber.
Ugh. That was a real thing previously?
As someone who knows next to nothing about guns, does that mean that guns would have to be unloaded (no ammunition in weapon) or simply not "cocked" (loaded but not able to fire until you chamber a round)?
The first one is a little stupid (if you do have to have one, it's useless without ammo), but the second one could make sense as a safety thing, assuming that's what it means. It's just pulling back the slide on most pistols, right? You should be able to do that while you draw it I think.
Indeed. In the wild west many people carried their six shooter with only five rounds loaded and the hammer sitting on the empty chamber as it was possible for the hammer to strike the firing pin of the round with enough force to fire the bullet just by dropping the gun on the floor.
Now of course modern firearms are much safer but it does show that there can be legitimate reasons to carry your weapon with an empty chamber.
That was with firearms made in the 1800s. As CptJake wrote, the vast majority of modern firearms don't have that problem.
I agree with Ouze that it's personal preference to carry with or without a round in the chamber, but no one else should be dictating that. How is anyone going to know whether or not a round is chambered anyway? Are police or security or someone else going to check? That would just lead to more tense situations, more handling of the gun in public, and increasing the chance of a negligent discharge.
So anyway, I'm glad the "no round in chamber" rule was removed.
It seems like this comes down to another debate of 'do guns make things safer?' Undoubtedly guns increase the lethality of crimes that occur, but if they reduce the number of crimes by a greater amount then there is a net positive effect. Its the second part that the research is still hazy on (with plenty of biased studies on either side). Obviously the people who passed/support the law believe that guns do indeed make things safer, in which case they are very much doing the right thing. Those that oppose believe guns do not make things safer (or at least do not have a significant enough impact to overcome the issue of lethal force), and they are doing what they feel is right as well. Its a strange case for me since I support both sides in their actions, and I can see why they aren't all that hostile towards each other.
Extending that though, I think pro-gun politicians should go out of their way to allow concealed/open carry at their political gatherings. It would really show they support their side personally rather than as part of the political game.
There are problems with politicians having open carry at their speeches. The first is that a lot of the time the Secret Service forbids it, despite the wishes of the politician. Secondly, they still have to obey the rules of the building they are renting. If the only area large enough to hold all the people has a rule against guns it's either a gunless speech or not at all.
cuda1179 wrote: I can't remember where I read it, but I think someone did the projected math on how many students would be armed on campus. It's actually very few.
In order to be armed you need to have your permit, which means you need to be 21, a legal resident of the US, a resident of Texas or a state that has a permit Texas recognizes, not have a drug conviction, not have been institutionalized, not have been charged with domestic violence, not have a restraining order, not too many DUI's.
That means that with a student body of 50,000 only 9,000 would even be eligible to get a permit. Only 2% of those polled said they would be interested in getting a permit, so that look like 180 people. Even if you are permitted to carry, it doesn't mean you will. Statistics say only 1/5 of people with permits actually carry.
So, it looks like there will be 36 guns on campus.
What's the point of the law, then? If so few people benefit from it, I mean?
cuda1179 wrote: I can't remember where I read it, but I think someone did the projected math on how many students would be armed on campus. It's actually very few.
In order to be armed you need to have your permit, which means you need to be 21, a legal resident of the US, a resident of Texas or a state that has a permit Texas recognizes, not have a drug conviction, not have been institutionalized, not have been charged with domestic violence, not have a restraining order, not too many DUI's.
That means that with a student body of 50,000 only 9,000 would even be eligible to get a permit. Only 2% of those polled said they would be interested in getting a permit, so that look like 180 people. Even if you are permitted to carry, it doesn't mean you will. Statistics say only 1/5 of people with permits actually carry.
So, it looks like there will be 36 guns on campus.
What's the point of the law, then? If so few people benefit from it, I mean?
It allows freedom of choice to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right where once that right was massively restricted. What other point do you need?
Kilkrazy wrote: By your reckoning the right wasn't massively restricted since only 36/9,000 people were denied it (and only on certain university campuses.)
Having laid that issue to rest, what is the point of the law?
Kilkrazy wrote: By your reckoning the right wasn't massively restricted since only 36/9,000 people were denied it (and only on certain university campuses.)
Having laid that issue to rest, what is the point of the law?
Why would you want to pass a law just to restrict somebody's constitutional rights to begin with? Particularly if it wasn't a problem to begin with.
cuda1179 wrote: I can't remember where I read it, but I think someone did the projected math on how many students would be armed on campus. It's actually very few.
In order to be armed you need to have your permit, which means you need to be 21, a legal resident of the US, a resident of Texas or a state that has a permit Texas recognizes, not have a drug conviction, not have been institutionalized, not have been charged with domestic violence, not have a restraining order, not too many DUI's.
That means that with a student body of 50,000 only 9,000 would even be eligible to get a permit. Only 2% of those polled said they would be interested in getting a permit, so that look like 180 people. Even if you are permitted to carry, it doesn't mean you will. Statistics say only 1/5 of people with permits actually carry.
So, it looks like there will be 36 guns on campus.
What's the point of the law, then? If so few people benefit from it, I mean?
So what is the threshold that must be reached before a right must be exercised? 3.4% of the United States identify as homosexual, should they lose their right to equal protection under the law because so few homosexuals benefit from it"? Muslims make up 0.9% of the US population, should they lose their right to free exercise of religion or freedom from discrimination because so few of them will benefit?
Your question is absolutely absurd. A better question is why should you restrict a Constitutional right?
Kilkrazy wrote: By your reckoning the right wasn't massively restricted since only 36/9,000 people were denied it (and only on certain university campuses.)
Having laid that issue to rest, what is the point of the law?
Why would you want to pass a law just to restrict somebody's constitutional rights to begin with? Particularly if it wasn't a problem to begin with.
For the same reason (but in a totally opposite result) with people having an obscene behavior in public. Very few people are actually concerned by this, but yet their choice is restricted because of the law.
To be honest, you have far less chances to hurt people by having an obscene behavior than carrying concealed guns in public places. That's the reason of the protest; to show the true absurdity of the reasoning from people supporting that kind of law. Quite funny to see the same strawman argument told over and over.
If the state is going to issue concealed carry permits to college students then it makes sense to let them carry on state school grounds. The permit is proof that the state trusts the person to responsibly carry a concealed firearm once that trust is given it doesn't seem like simply being on campus is a justifiable reason to revoke that trust. If the state didn't want college students to carry on campus the state should just not issue permits to college students instead of issuing permits and then denying them to be utilized on campus.
Why would you want to pass a law just to restrict somebody's constitutional rights to begin with? Particularly if it wasn't a problem to begin with.
For the same reason (but in a totally opposite result) with people having an obscene behavior in public. Very few people are actually concerned by this, but yet their choice is restricted because of the law.
To be honest, you have far less chances to hurt people by having an obscene behavior than carrying concealed guns in public places. That's the reason of the protest; to show the true absurdity of the reasoning from people supporting that kind of law. Quite funny to see the same strawman argument told over and over.
Strawman. That word doesn't mean what you think it does. If that is the point the students are trying to make, they fail miserably. Adults purchasing adult toys in public isn't obscene, nowadays.
The high profile murders and rapes on college campuses over the last decade is more than enough of a sound reason. There is nothing "absurd" about it. There is no excuse for State funded universities not to allow law-abiding adults of legal age to carry concealed weapons for personal defense, if they are licensed to do so by the State in question.
Also, "obscene behavior" is a nebulous and vague term in the modern mosaic, especially with the lax morals of modern Western society. It's gotten to the point to where you actually have to perform sex acts in public, in front of people, to be considered engaging in "obscene" behavior. And even that is tolerated in some jurisdictions on some occasions (such as during pride events in some liberal-leaning cities or during live "performance art" presentations at colleges, to name a couple of examples). It's a matter of whether it's "free expression" or "lewd behavior". And unlike exercising your right to self-defense or free expression, lewd behavior isn't a protected right.
Why would you want to pass a law just to restrict somebody's constitutional rights to begin with? Particularly if it wasn't a problem to begin with.
For the same reason (but in a totally opposite result) with people having an obscene behavior in public. Very few people are actually concerned by this, but yet their choice is restricted because of the law.
To be honest, you have far less chances to hurt people by having an obscene behavior than carrying concealed guns in public places. That's the reason of the protest; to show the true absurdity of the reasoning from people supporting that kind of law. Quite funny to see the same strawman argument told over and over.
Obscenity laws generally aren't good laws either. So the existence of one bit of bad, absurd law is your justification for another bit of bad, absurd law?
Like oldravenman3025 said, I'm not sure you understand what is meant by strawman argument.
Indeed. In the wild west many people carried their six shooter with only five rounds loaded and the hammer sitting on the empty chamber as it was possible for the hammer to strike the firing pin of the round with enough force to fire the bullet just by dropping the gun on the floor.
Now of course modern firearms are much safer but it does show that there can be legitimate reasons to carry your weapon with an empty chamber.
There -WERE- legitimate reasons. That state of affairs has generally ceased to exist. If you have any remotely modern handgun, it will not be firing unless you are incapable of keeping things from yanking the trigger.
To be honest, you have far less chances to hurt people by having an obscene behavior than carrying concealed guns in public places.
Based on what data? Texas DPS crime records pay attention to crimes committed by CHL holders. One of those protestors using a <censored> to hurt someone is more likely than someone carrying on campus legally is, by a long way. Don't take my word for it, here's the page with the numbers: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm
Anyway, I'd support concealed carry on campus, and I'd support carrying sex toys openly too.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: A better question is why should you restrict a Constitutional right?
Well... I don't know if you've noticed, but...
Brace yourself.
Spoiler:
You don't live in a late 18th century empty country with less than 4 millions inhabitants, most of them completely illiterate farmers.
I know, the US Constitution is the Constitution. A remarkable text. Still quite relevant more than two centuries later. Most parts have aged very, very well. Some parts... not so well.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: A better question is why should you restrict a Constitutional right?
Well... I don't know if you've noticed, but...
Brace yourself.
Spoiler:
You don't live in a late 18th century empty country with less than 4 millions inhabitants, most of them completely illiterate farmers.
I know, the US Constitution is the Constitution. A remarkable text. Still quite relevant more than two centuries later. Most parts have aged very, very well. Some parts... not so well.
That inherent right of self defense has nothing to do with the 18th century, as our Supreme Court has very clearly stated in the 21st Century.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: A better question is why should you restrict a Constitutional right?
Well... I don't know if you've noticed, but...
Brace yourself.
Spoiler:
You don't live in a late 18th century empty country with less than 4 millions inhabitants, most of them completely illiterate farmers.
I know, the US Constitution is the Constitution. A remarkable text. Still quite relevant more than two centuries later. Most parts have aged very, very well. Some parts... not so well.
So your argument on infringing on rights is that the document was written in the 18th century? So based on your argument we should no longer have the right to free speech, free press, the exercise of religion, freedom of assembly, right to due process, right to be free from cruel or unusual punishments, and many other rights?
So for how long after a law has been passed is it valid, and you may enjoy it's protections before they time out?
The right to self defense is as timeless as the right to life, because the right to self preservation is an essential component of the right to life.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It seems like this comes down to another debate of 'do guns make things safer?' Undoubtedly guns increase the lethality of crimes that occur, but if they reduce the number of crimes by a greater amount then there is a net positive effect.
But if gun lethality causes people to die for non capital offenses the offset 'benefit' is illusory.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: The right to self defense is as timeless as the right to life, because the right to self preservation is an essential component of the right to life.
The right to carry weapons for self defence is granted by the community as a whole, it's not a right you're born with (other than the fact you were born in to a community that grants that right).
Rightly or wrongly, if society deems your right to protect yourself with weapons excessively endangers the community at large too much, your right to defend yourself with guns can be taken away.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It seems like this comes down to another debate of 'do guns make things safer?' Undoubtedly guns increase the lethality of crimes that occur, but if they reduce the number of crimes by a greater amount then there is a net positive effect.
But if gun lethality causes people to die for non capital offenses the offset 'benefit' is illusory.
Not to the person who was not beaten/robbed/raped because they were able to defend themselves. Pretty tangible benefit for them.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It seems like this comes down to another debate of 'do guns make things safer?' Undoubtedly guns increase the lethality of crimes that occur, but if they reduce the number of crimes by a greater amount then there is a net positive effect.
But if gun lethality causes people to die for non capital offenses the offset 'benefit' is illusory.
Regardless of the classification or severity of the initial criminal act, in most jurisdictions and circumstances the justifiable use of lethal force to protect yourself is only happening under life or death circumstances. A petty crime doesn't justify lawful use of lethal force but if it escalates into an imminent threat of bodily harm then it becomes a life or death situation that can justify the use of lethal force. If a citizen shoots and kills somebody in a situation that didn't place the shooter under a reasonable imminent threat of bodily harm then it wasn't a justified use of lethal force it was murder.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So your argument on infringing on rights is that the document was written in the 18th century?
Well...
Let's have a look at the 21st amendment, shall we...
The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Sure, it was not about the Bill of Rights.
And all about granting the constitutional right to drink booze. Can't argue with that.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So based on your argument we should no longer have the right to free speech, free press, the exercise of religion, freedom of assembly, right to due process, right to be free from cruel or unusual punishments, and many other rights?
That's why I wrote most of it and some of it.
I case of doubt, just have a look at the constitutions of most western countries that may be considered "not dictatures". They usually forget to mention the right to have a heavy machinegun in your basement. People can still have guns.
Always striking to see all the knee-jerk about the "muh gunz" Amendment and the deafening silence about the daily violations of the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments in that one prison, yeah, the one, in the bay...
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So your argument on infringing on rights is that the document was written in the 18th century?
Well...
Let's have a look at the 21st amendment, shall we...
The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Sure, it was not about the Bill of Rights.
And all about granting the constitutional right to drink booze. Can't argue with that.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So based on your argument we should no longer have the right to free speech, free press, the exercise of religion, freedom of assembly, right to due process, right to be free from cruel or unusual punishments, and many other rights?
That's why I wrote most of it and some of it.
I case of doubt, just have a look at the constitutions of most western countries that may be considered "not dictatures". They usually forget to mention the right to have a heavy machinegun in your basement. People can still have guns.
Always striking to see all the knee-jerk about the "muh gunz" Amendment and the deafening silence about the daily violations of the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments in that one prison, yeah, the one, in the bay...
How many Americans do you really think have heavy machine guns in their basements? Serious question.
And there are plenty of Americans who are equally unhappy with the infringement of other rights in America as they are about the right to bear arms. Maybe you're just honing in on the right to bear arms if that's the one you disagree with?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So your argument on infringing on rights is that the document was written in the 18th century?
Well...
Let's have a look at the 21st amendment, shall we...
The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Sure, it was not about the Bill of Rights.
And all about granting the constitutional right to drink booze. Can't argue with that.
The fact that there is a process for amending the Constitution does not mean that we ignore the Constitution because it was written in the 18th Century as you argued.
Litcheur wrote: That's why I wrote most of it and some of it.
I case of doubt, just have a look at the constitutions of most western countries that may be considered "not dictatures". They usually forget to mention the right to have a heavy machinegun in your basement. People can still have guns.
Your oblique references to what you considered acceptable in another country were sparse on details. Nevertheless your argument was that the we should restrict Constitutional rights on the basis of the age of the document. Are you still making that argument?
What other countries choose to permit in their territory is there concern, and frankly of little concern to be because I don't live there. Each country has the right to make the laws that work for it. For us we recognize, and place a heavier emphasis, on individual rights - such as self defense. I lived in the UK for most of my life and I abided by and understood those laws. I moved to the US and I now abide by the laws here. I didn't engage in cultural imperialism by demanding that another country conform to the norms that I was used to from my country of origin.
How many people do you think have heavy machineguns in their basement? Just out of interest how do you think that I would acquire said firearm?
Litcheur wrote: Always striking to see all the knee-jerk about the "muh gunz" Amendment and the deafening silence about the daily violations of the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments in that one prison, yeah, the one, in the bay...
And those violations are wrong too, but given that we are talking specifically about firearms those discussions are at best a distraction. Just like shouting "All lives matter" when discussing Black Lives Matter.
What is actually striking is the Dunning-Krueger Effect when it comes to the discussion of firearms, with those who know the least making the most noise;
Especially when those arguing against the Second Amendment are all about "muh feelz"
Kilkrazy wrote: By your reckoning the right wasn't massively restricted since only 36/9,000 people were denied it (and only on certain university campuses.)
Having laid that issue to rest, what is the point of the law?
By your reasoning the laws allowing transgendered into whatever bathroom they choose has no point, either, because proportionately so few benifit from it.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So your argument on infringing on rights is that the document was written in the 18th century?
Well...
Let's have a look at the 21st amendment, shall we...
The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Sure, it was not about the Bill of Rights.
And all about granting the constitutional right to drink booze. Can't argue with that.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So based on your argument we should no longer have the right to free speech, free press, the exercise of religion, freedom of assembly, right to due process, right to be free from cruel or unusual punishments, and many other rights?
That's why I wrote most of it and some of it.
I case of doubt, just have a look at the constitutions of most western countries that may be considered "not dictatures". They usually forget to mention the right to have a heavy machinegun in your basement. People can still have guns.
Always striking to see all the knee-jerk about the "muh gunz" Amendment and the deafening silence about the daily violations of the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments in that one prison, yeah, the one, in the bay...
Honest question for both you and Kilkrazy. Why are you against people in the U.S. having guns?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: What is actually striking is the Dunning-Krueger Effect when it comes to the discussion of firearms, with those who know the least making the most noise;
I own guns.
20 gauge and .243 for hunting, .22 LR for the range. Yup, small frame.
I'm strongly in favor of regulations. Even if it means I have to do some paperwork, and go once in a while to the doctor to prove I've not become clinically blind or flying rodent gak insane.
We may have different ideas of what "constitutional rights" means. I'm okay with that. We're from different countries, different cultures. And that's part of what's makes Dakka a great place.
According to me, a constitutional right means "no regulations, no exceptions". They should apply to everybody, everywhere and should be protected at all costs. No matter where, what, how, why or who. No "ifs", no "buts". No exception.
No matter if you're a criminal, a terrorist, a clinically insane person.
No matter if you're in a plane. Or next to the POTUS.
Should free speech be a constitutional right ? Definitely.
Should the right to bear arms a constitutional right ? Well... Not totally sure about that one.
Litcheur wrote: I own guns.
20 gauge and .243 for hunting, .22 LR for the range. Yup, small frame.
I'm strongly in favor of regulations. Even if it means I have to do some paperwork, and go once in a while to the doctor to prove I've not become clinically blind or flying rodent gak insane.
We may have different ideas of what "constitutional rights" means. I'm okay with that. We're from different countries, different cultures. And that's part of what's makes Dakka a great place.
According to me, a constitutional right means "no regulations, no exceptions". They should apply to everybody, everywhere and should be protected at all costs. No matter where, what, how, why or who. No "ifs", no "buts". No exception.
No matter if you're a criminal, a terrorist, a clinically insane person.
No matter if you're in a plane. Or next to the POTUS.
Should free speech be a constitutional right ? Definitely.
Should the right to bear arms a constitutional right ? Well... Not totally sure about that one.
Yet for owning guns you still do not know about the legal, historical, and cultural norms around the ownership of firearms in the United States.
We share the same understanding of what a Constitutional right is. And in relation to the Second Amendment it explicitly states "shall not be infringed". In the United States we have already decided that the right to bear arms is a constitutionally protected right. In addition most individual state constitutions also recognize the right to keep and bear arms; for example the Indiana Constitution states “[t]he people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.”. So we have decided that it is a Constitutional right, and should be afforded all the appropriate protections..
Spoiler:
Before anyone decides to get on the usual talking points about the Second Amendment;
1. "well regulated" when the Constitution meant "in good working order" i.e. with sufficient arms and ammunition.
2. "militia" does not exclusively mean National Guard. The National Guard is an example of an organized militia. US law considers anyone over 18 who is, or intends to become, a US citizen a member of the militia (what is called a "disorganized militia")
3. The Second Amendment and other Constitutional rights are not frozen in time. The Second Amendment is not limited to muskets. The First Amendment does not limit the press to 18th century printing presses
Kilkrazy wrote: By your reckoning the right wasn't massively restricted since only 36/9,000 people were denied it (and only on certain university campuses.)
Having laid that issue to rest, what is the point of the law?
Why would you want to pass a law just to restrict somebody's constitutional rights to begin with? Particularly if it wasn't a problem to begin with.
There wasn't a law, it was a rule of the university and a new law has been imposed by the state to overrule the university's rules.
The students obviously feel it is a problem or why would they be protesting.
I seem to remember a group of college students in the 1960's protesting people's rights on a state college campus in Alabama.
If I remember correctly the majority opposed the Constitutional rights of the minority there too. I don't hear anyone claiming the majority was correct in that case.
Kilkrazy wrote: Having laid that issue to rest, what is the point of the law?
Kilkrazy wrote: There wasn't a law, it was a rule of the university and a new law has been imposed by the state to overrule the university's rules.
The students obviously feel it is a problem or why would they be protesting.
1. You called it a law initially, and others opted to use your terminology so as not to get bogged down in semantic arguments
2. You just answered your own initial question on what the point of the law was
The students obviously feel it is a problem or why would they be protesting.
Well sure, some people sure felt it was a problem no one but <generic bad guy here> had a gun on hand when virginia tech had its shooting and decided something needed to change. This is why we have campus carry now, except that the effort involved more than prancing around in front of a camera wearing sex toys.
There wasn't a law, it was a rule of the university and a new law has been imposed by the state to overrule the university's rules.
Which is not always a bad thing. In this case, I don't have any reason to think it will prompt an increase in criminal behavior on campus, and I certainly have no personal problem with more vetted people around who are armed.
I definitely would say the argument that a right is predicated upon a substantial enough percentage of the population exercising, or having access to it, is sort of a bad argument. It doesn't matter how few transgender people's rights are being infringed, or how many CCW holders, or how few families the queen is making lodge Royal marines. Enough with the third amendment violations, already!
Ouze wrote: I definitely would say the argument that a right is predicated upon a substantial enough percentage of the population exercising, or having access to it, is sort of a bad argument. It doesn't matter how few transgender people's rights are being infringed, or how many CCW holders, or how few families the queen is making lodge Royal marines. Enough with the third amendment violations, already!
So you're saying I won't lose my freedom of speech when I shut my mouth and inhale? Wow. Wish I knew that sooner. I've been screaming for 29 years straight!
Ouze wrote: I definitely would say the argument that a right is predicated upon a substantial enough percentage of the population exercising, or having access to it, is sort of a bad argument. It doesn't matter how few transgender people's rights are being infringed, or how many CCW holders, or how few families the queen is making lodge Royal marines. Enough with the third amendment violations, already!
So you're saying I won't lose my freedom of speech when I shut my mouth and inhale? Wow. Wish I knew that sooner. I've been screaming for 29 years straight!
Drink some tea and honey to soothe your vocal cords
Discussing issues entirely in terms of the constitution is perhaps the silliest thing of all.
"We wrote it on a piece of paper, so that's the end of that" is a completely dysfunctional approach to discussing politics and individual rights.
I agree.
Fortunately, that's not the argument being made. "We wrote it on a piece of paper, so that's the end of it until such time as what we wrote is amended, a process explicitly spelled out in the document itself and one that has been used multiple times over the country's history to change things that the bulk of society felt were outdated," is much more accurate.
The Second Amendment would go away tomorrow if there was support for amending it out of existence. There isn't; it's not even close. It hasn't been anywhere near close in recent memory.
Frazzled wrote: Thats my point. They have the right to protest. The manner they are protesting in is infantile and beneath a top ten/top 20 university.
44th. But who's counting?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: The Second Amendment would go away tomorrow if there was support for amending it out of existence. There isn't; it's not even close. It hasn't been anywhere near close in recent memory.
I agree, fortunately that's not the argument being made.
You are talking about the question 'can we stop people buying guns'. Your answer to that question is accurate and well formed. The only question is why you're answering that question, when no-one asked it.
Rather, tneva82 made the argument that restrictions on dildos but not on guns was legal but stupid. CptJake responded that it wasn't stupid but was instead what the constitution said. This was, is and will forever be a terrible response that makes no sense.
sebster wrote: CptJake responded that it wasn't stupid but was instead what the constitution said. This was, is and will forever be a terrible response that makes no sense.
You understand that the Constitution is the final authority on what's legal and what's not in the United States, right? Determining whether something is legal based on what the Constitution says is pretty much the job description of the Supreme Court. Rather than being a terrible response and failing to make sense, there is quite literally no better reference material for arguments about legality.
Seaward wrote: You understand that the Constitution is the final authority on what's legal and what's not in the United States, right? Determining whether something is legal based on what the Constitution says is pretty much the job description of the Supreme Court. Rather than being a terrible response and failing to make sense, there is quite literally no better reference material for arguments about legality.
Is there something in the constitution against reading?
Here is the actual statement that kicked this off;
tneva82 wrote: Yes as I said it's legal. Doesn't make it right.
If you still can't get it - there is no argument being made about what the law is and what the law is not. There is an argument being made that the current state of affairs is a very stupid state of affairs. In response, first CaptJake and and now you have responded by pointing that it is the constitution and therefore it is the law.
You understand that the Constitution is the final authority on what's legal and what's not in the United States, right?
Thing is, that's the only argument that keeps going from gun support people.
You understand that the Constitution isn't untouchable, right? It was made a long time ago, according to a certain situation at that time that isn't the same right now. It was written by humans, not God. Therefore, it is perfectible and must be reviewed if needed.
The absurdity of dildos being restricted but not guns is still there. It is legal, indeed. But stopping just at this is losing the point of the protest.
It is not stupid to protest against a stupid fact of reality, that was made by humans and thus can be undone by humans. It's not a fatality.
Sarouan wrote: Thing is, that's the only argument that keeps going from gun support people.
Hardly.
You understand that the Constitution isn't untouchable, right?
I do. That's why I said, ""We wrote it on a piece of paper, so that's the end of it until such time as what we wrote is amended, a process explicitly spelled out in the document itself and one that has been used multiple times over the country's history to change things that the bulk of society felt were outdated," is much more accurate."
It was made a long time ago, according to a certain situation at that time that isn't the same right now.
True. Back then, for example, I could have owned a warship if I had the means and the desire. Can't do that now. Firearms are far, far more restricted today than they were at the time the amendment was written.
The absurdity of dildos being restricted but not guns is still there.
Guns aren't restricted? Good to know. I ought to tell my sixteen year-old neighbor with a felony conviction that he actually can legally get a gun, due to the lack of restrictions.
It is legal, indeed. But stopping just at this is losing the point of the protest.
The "point of the protest" is that progressive college kids are scared of firearms. There's nothing new or surprising in that. And there are many, many reasons why we don't leave public policy decisions solely in the hands of undergraduates - our fondness for the Second Amendment and our desire to avoid fifty year convictions for microaggressions being a few examples among many.
Seaward wrote: True. Back then, for example, I could have owned a warship if I had the means and the desire. Can't do that now. Firearms are far, far more restricted today than they were at the time the amendment was written.
On the other hand firearms are also much more capable than they were at the time the amendment was written. There is much greater potential for criminal use, and much greater potential for accidental deaths (especially when you get into the idea of people owning a modern warship). Similarly, civilians armed with their personal weapons had a much greater chance of a successful revolution than they do now, and so the idea of guaranteeing the right to own weapons as protection against the government made at least some sense. Now the "protect yourself against the government" argument is pure fantasy material and the pro-gun side has invented a whole new concept of owning carrying concealed handguns for protection against criminals.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Litcheur wrote: Should free speech be a constitutional right ? Definitely.
Absolutely not, not by your definition of "no regulations ever". It is absolute insanity to suggest that fraud, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, making death threats, etc, should be protected as constitutional rights.
Peregrine wrote: On the other hand firearms are also much more capable than they were at the time the amendment was written. There is much greater potential for criminal use, and much greater potential for accidental deaths (especially when you get into the idea of people owning a modern warship). Similarly, civilians armed with their personal weapons had a much greater chance of a successful revolution than they do now, and so the idea of guaranteeing the right to own weapons as protection against the government made at least some sense. Now the "protect yourself against the government" argument is pure fantasy material and the pro-gun side has invented a whole new concept of owning carrying concealed handguns for protection against criminals.
I disagree. We've fought two insurgency wars in the past decade and a half that have shown it's not fantasy. Toss into the mix the fact that the military is not going to follow the government like a monolith depending on who's in power at the time of this purely hypothetical revolution, and you've got a lot of uncertainty.
The concept of self-defense was hardly "invented" in the past fifty years, either. If anything, we've narrowed the definition rather than expanded it. We're talking about guys who used to kill each other over points of honor; you really think they didn't believe using a gun to defend yourself was a right?
Seaward wrote: I disagree. We've fought two insurgency wars in the past decade and a half that have shown it's not fantasy.
We've fought two insurgency wars where inflicting excessive collateral damage in killing the enemy is unacceptable, political and popular support for the war are limited at best, abandoning an unpopular war is an appealing possibility, and nobody seems to know which side of the whole mess is actually the enemy. That's not at all the same as fighting an oppressive tyrant with no ability or desire to retreat, few or no limits on how many people they're willing to kill*, widespread popular support**, and the ability to identify enemies of the state as targets. A hypothetical domestic revolution doesn't have the ability to be annoying for a few years until the tyrant runs out of patience and leaves. The tyrant is going to fight to the bitter end with everything they have, and they're not going to care how many people they have to kill to put down the insurgency. The two situations are simply not comparable, at all.
*Otherwise it's extremely unlikely that violent revolution is justified. Killing people because a peaceful and legally-elected government passes a law you don't like is murder, not a justifiable revolution. For revolution to be justified you're talking about the kind of oppressive tyranny where the secret police disappear people in the night, enemies of the state are publicly executed, etc.
**Remember, the tyrant got into power in the first place and didn't immediately get voted out by the majority. The most likely outcome is something like Nazi Germany where mass executions of "undesirables" are not only accepted by the population but cheered on by the adoring masses. Nuke a whole town because they tried to start a revolution? Excellent, those s needed killing.
Toss into the mix the fact that the military is not going to follow the government like a monolith depending on who's in power at the time of this purely hypothetical revolution, and you've got a lot of uncertainty.
Of course, but the military joining the fight makes the civilians with AR-15s irrelevant. The outcome of the revolution will be decided by which faction in the military wins the fight while all the out of shape 50 year olds who put "tactical" everything all over their man-dolls are told to stay out of the way. And in the unlikely event that the military wants new recruits they'll also have weapons to arm them.
The concept of self-defense was hardly "invented" in the past fifty years, either. If anything, we've narrowed the definition rather than expanded it. We're talking about guys who used to kill each other over points of honor; you really think they didn't believe using a gun to defend yourself was a right?
Of course they believed in self defense, but how many people in the late 1700s were advocating for concealed handguns as a means of self defense? How often was self defense against criminals cited as a reason for the second amendment? Moving from bulky single-shot pistols to modern revolvers and semi-automatics is a massive change in the ability to use a gun to defend yourself, and that ability much more relevant right (if you believe it is a right) to protect in 2016.
Seaward wrote: I disagree. We've fought two insurgency wars in the past decade and a half that have shown it's not fantasy.
We've fought two insurgency wars where inflicting excessive collateral damage in killing the enemy is unacceptable, political and popular support for the war are limited at best, abandoning an unpopular war is an appealing possibility, and nobody seems to know which side of the whole mess is actually the enemy. That's not at all the same as fighting an oppressive tyrant with no ability or desire to retreat, few or no limits on how many people they're willing to kill*, widespread popular support**, and the ability to identify enemies of the state as targets. A hypothetical domestic revolution doesn't have the ability to be annoying for a few years until the tyrant runs out of patience and leaves. The tyrant is going to fight to the bitter end with everything they have, and they're not going to care how many people they have to kill to put down the insurgency. The two situations are simply not comparable, at all.
*Otherwise it's extremely unlikely that violent revolution is justified. Killing people because a peaceful and legally-elected government passes a law you don't like is murder, not a justifiable revolution. For revolution to be justified you're talking about the kind of oppressive tyranny where the secret police disappear people in the night, enemies of the state are publicly executed, etc.
**Remember, the tyrant got into power in the first place and didn't immediately get voted out by the majority. The most likely outcome is something like Nazi Germany where mass executions of "undesirables" are not only accepted by the population but cheered on by the adoring masses. Nuke a whole town because they tried to start a revolution? Excellent, those s needed killing.
The United States has already faced a situation where one half of the country warred with the other half over disputes about a democratically-elected government, and both sides believed they were fighting on the side of justice and self-interest.
Of course, but the military joining the fight makes the civilians with AR-15s irrelevant. The outcome of the revolution will be decided by which faction in the military wins the fight while all the out of shape 50 year olds who put "tactical" everything all over their man-dolls are told to stay out of the way. And in the unlikely event that the military wants new recruits they'll also have weapons to arm them.
There, again, I strongly disagree, and I think you're significantly downplaying the amount of combat veterans in the country who are keenly interested in keeping up their Second Amendment rights out of the service.
Of course they believed in self defense, but how many people in the late 1700s were advocating for concealed handguns as a means of self defense?
I don't think where or how someone carried their pistol was even on their radar. The point you're missing is that it was self-evident for them that people were allowed to carry weapons to defend themselves.
> Moving from bulky single-shot pistols to modern revolvers and semi-automatics is a massive change in the ability to use a gun to defend yourself, and that ability much more relevant right (if you believe it is a right) to protect in 2016.
It's a "massive change" in efficiency, not the concept. All that changes is that you have a much better chance of actually incapacitating someone today rather than putting a lead ball in them and waiting for them to slowly die from septicemia.
CptJake wrote: Stupid in your mind, but not in the eyes of folks who understand our constitution.
Discussing issues entirely in terms of the constitution is perhaps the silliest thing of all.
"We wrote it on a piece of paper, so that's the end of that" is a completely dysfunctional approach to discussing politics and individual rights.
Perhaps reading what I wrote would help. I said 'not in the eyes of folks who understand our constitution.'
If you understand our constitution, you understand it has an amendment process, and that the whole Bill Of Rights amendments are historically pretty important. Understanding that will (or maybe should) explain why valuing guns is not silly.
In no way does 'understanding the constitution' equate the argument you seem to have replied to instead of the argument I made. I did not say anything close to "We wrote it on a piece of paper, so that's the end of that'.
So, in your opinion, it is necessary to allow concealed carry in campus? The very places where people gather to study, and have nothing to do with protecting your home by the way, and where you absolutely don't need to bring more means for violence inside?
And you don't understand some young people don't feel exactly safe while knowing one of their comrades next to them may be carrying a hidden weapon and use it whenever he wants, just because he snaps or something?
Because, let's be clear, some of the most tragic events made in American schools were made by students bringing concealed weapons inside and fire at will on their unaware comrades before usually dying.
And now, there is a law allowing them to do so? You really don't see where is the problem in that?
If you think the intent is helping "western heroes ready to kill the crazy ones with their holy guns", well to me, that just makes easier the job of criminals and would be murderers to do their job. Because they will shoot first and use surprise to their full advantage.
You really don't see where is the danger in that? To me, it's quite understandable these students and teachers would protest. Calling it "stupidity" is, IMHO, the true mark of irresponsibility.
Sarouan wrote: So, in your opinion, it is necessary to allow concealed carry in campus? The very places where people gather to study, and have nothing to do with protecting your home by the way, and where you absolutely don't need to bring more means for violence inside?
And you don't understand some young people don't feel exactly safe while knowing one of their comrades next to them may be carrying a hidden weapon and use it whenever he wants, just because he snaps or something?
Because, let's be clear, some of the most tragic events made in American schools were made by students bringing concealed weapons inside and fire at will on their unaware comrades before usually dying.
And now, there is a law allowing them to do so? You really don't see where is the problem in that?
If you think the intent is helping "western heroes ready to kill the crazy ones with their holy guns", well to me, that just makes easier the job of criminals and would be murderers to do their job. Because they will shoot first and use surprise to their full advantage.
You really don't see where is the danger in that? To me, it's quite understandable these students and teachers would protest. Calling it "stupidity" is, IMHO, the true mark of irresponsibility.
But do you honestly think making US campuses gun free zones is going to make them safer from guns?
Specific gun free zones in a country which is otherwise gun friendly doesn't work. It just means it's very easy to carry a gun in to the gun free zone if you have ill intent, but people following the law won't.
Gun free zones work in countries like Australia because it's hard to get guns out here in the first place, if you're a crazed maniac teenager you can't just go get your Dad's gun out of his sock drawer (or steal the key to his gun safe) and go to college and start shooting people because your Dad is unlikely to have a gun in the first place.
The only way a gun free zone could possibly make you safer is if you put up checkpoints to search people for guns before they enter the campus, which is, IMO, not a good solution - or if you disarmed the whole country so it was no longer easy to get guns in the first place.
skyth wrote: Sounds suspiciously like the argument that criminals won't follow laws or rules so why have any laws or rules in the first place?
I prefer to think of it as, why create laws that needlessly endanger people?
You mean, of course, laws enabling people to bring weapons into a place.
Laws allowing law abiding citizens to bring weapons into a place, not removing their right of self-defense.
Unless you're trying to prove that those who conceal carry are more likely to commit violent crime now. I think someone provided some pretty hard evidence counter to that idea earlier in the thread.
Sarouan wrote: So, in your opinion, it is necessary to allow concealed carry in campus? The very places where people gather to study, and have nothing to do with protecting your home by the way, and where you absolutely don't need to bring more means for violence inside?
And you don't understand some young people don't feel exactly safe while knowing one of their comrades next to them may be carrying a hidden weapon and use it whenever he wants, just because he snaps or something?
Because, let's be clear, some of the most tragic events made in American schools were made by students bringing concealed weapons inside and fire at will on their unaware comrades before usually dying.
And now, there is a law allowing them to do so? You really don't see where is the problem in that?
If you think the intent is helping "western heroes ready to kill the crazy ones with their holy guns", well to me, that just makes easier the job of criminals and would be murderers to do their job. Because they will shoot first and use surprise to their full advantage.
You really don't see where is the danger in that? To me, it's quite understandable these students and teachers would protest. Calling it "stupidity" is, IMHO, the true mark of irresponsibility.
I would agree with you if that was actually a valid fear, but it's not. The only people allowed to have a gun on them are the ones with permits. As I have all ready pointed out, those with permits are statistically the most law abiding people in the country. Would you fear for your life sitting in a room with an on-duty police officer? By your logic you should, as police are 6 times more likely to commit a serious crime than the concealed carry civilian you state should be feared.
skyth wrote: Sounds suspiciously like the argument that criminals won't follow laws or rules so why have any laws or rules in the first place?
No, if that's what you took out of it then you missed my point.
Making a campus a gun free zone won't magically make guns go away, you don't create an invisible wall through which guns cannot pass.
Gun free zones don't work, you have to make the entire region gun free so people can't easily get guns in the first place (like many other countries), or make your gun free zone have checkpoints through which you actively search people before they're allowed on campus.
Simply creating a rule "mmk guys, you can have your guns at home, you can carry them down the street, you can buy them from the shops, but don't bring them past this invisible line" doesn't make people behind that line safer.
If you're afraid of being shot, fine, be afraid, but don't invent rules that aren't actually going to make you safer, that's stupid. Move to a country that doesn't allow guns ANYWHERE not just on campus and you'll be significantly less likely to be shot, or encourage your government to change the law so no one can carry guns.
Sarouan- mass shootings happen in schools for a reason. The perp knows no one else legally has a gun on them and thus there is no way for people to defend themselves. Look at the stats, almost every mass shooting in the US is in a gun free zone. By allowing individuals to carry concealed, bad guys have no idea who has a gun and can defend themselves and take them out.
As for the safe space crap, that's a bunch of BS. College is for getting people ready for the real world. If they have an irrational fear of guns then they have some growing up to do before they can handle being on their own. That safe space is actually less safe because guns aren't allowed. While I don't carry a gun currently(cant find a way to comfortably carry one concealed) I do carry a knife and will not do business at places that do not allow guns. I consider them not only Anti-American, but unsafe places to go. I know they don't allow them, most don't have armed security, and any bad guys that do a minute of research know no on is legally armed.
The theater shooter a couple years back actually wrote in his journal that police found that he scoped out 7 different theaters and the one he picked was the only one of the seven that had a no weapons policy.
This whole protest thing in college itself is destroying American education. Foreign students(from Asia and the Middle-east) are kicking our asses. Engineering schools are majority foreign students because US kids cant cut it. Note that is directly from a director of admissions. US students are lazy, they don't put in the work needed, they expect things to be given to them. Even worse their parents come in to complain when their 22 year old kid cant pass a senior level class with grades high enough to go forward. They don't understand why a 2.0 average doesn't cut it in grad school or how their special snowflake who studies so hard cant cut it. In more recent cases tying in with this you have kids protesting and wanting less work so they can concentrate on protesting crap. I read somewhere that the students in one school organized and actually petitioned for auto-passes so they could concentrate on social issues. Waving around dildos while funny, is nothing more than a symptom of the rot that is killing the next generation's education.
Yeah, but not everyone has the right to carry weaponry for self defence, that right is granted or revoked by society.
Thats is a matter of opinion and the difference between subjects and citizens.
The fact it's a matter of opinion proves my point. Millions of people get by day to day without the right to carry weapons, just because some societies think it's their right to carry weaponry doesn't make it a basic human right, it makes it a right those particular societies decided to grant. Those same communities can at a later date decide that the individual's ability to carry a weapon infringes on the safety of the community as a whole sufficiently that the right is revoked.
Thus it is not a "Everyone has the right..." it's a "Some societies grant the right...".
Based on what I've read, at the moment Americans seem to be about 50/50 on whether or not the right to carry weaponry should continue.
Sarouan wrote: So, in your opinion, it is necessary to allow concealed carry in campus? The very places where people gather to study, and have nothing to do with protecting your home by the way, and where you absolutely don't need to bring more means for violence inside?
Does your right to self defense end on a college campus?
Sarouan wrote: And you don't understand some young people don't feel exactly safe while knowing one of their comrades next to them may be carrying a hidden weapon and use it whenever he wants, just because he snaps or something?
The good old "The campus will run red with blood". Except on those campuses that have alreday allowed concealed carry this has not proven the case. Ever.
Sarouan wrote: Because, let's be clear, some of the most tragic events made in American schools were made by students bringing concealed weapons inside and fire at will on their unaware comrades before usually dying.
Not relevant to the concealed carry discussion. But nice effort.
Sarouan wrote: And now, there is a law allowing them to do so? You really don't see where is the problem in that?
There is a law allowing people to "fire at will on their unaware comrades"? Really? When was this enacted?
Sarouan wrote: If you think the intent is helping "western heroes ready to kill the crazy ones with their holy guns", well to me, that just makes easier the job of criminals and would be murderers to do their job. Because they will shoot first and use surprise to their full advantage.
Because criminals and would be murderers, as you pointed out above, didn't follow the law to begin with. So this levels the playing field for the law abiding. And guns are not "holy", they are not some sort of magical talisman. They are a tool.
Sarouan wrote: You really don't see where is the danger in that? To me, it's quite understandable these students and teachers would protest. Calling it "stupidity" is, IMHO, the true mark of irresponsibility.
Students and teachers protesting people exercising their rights is incredibly stupid.
Everyone carrying concealed at state universities in Texas have already been given permission by the state to carry concealed. The only thing the new law has done is made it so that state schools can't prohibit students from exercising the right granted them via the state issued permit. Private schools can still prohibit concealed carry just like private businesses and private residences.
The protests against allowing students to carry concealed seemed to be based on fear and a perception of concealed carry that isn't based on facts. Every student with a carry permit will have met the requirements to get one, those students will only be a tiny fraction of the overall student body and carry permit holders have been proven to be a very law abiding group of people so the odds of a student with a carry permit causing a problem or hurting other students are very small.
This whole protest thing in college itself is destroying American education. Foreign students(from Asia and the Middle-east) are kicking our asses. Engineering schools are majority foreign students because US kids cant cut it. Note that is directly from a director of admissions. US students are lazy, they don't put in the work needed, they expect things to be given to them. Even worse their parents come in to complain when their 22 year old kid cant pass a senior level class with grades high enough to go forward. They don't understand why a 2.0 average doesn't cut it in grad school or how their special snowflake who studies so hard cant cut it. In more recent cases tying in with this you have kids protesting and wanting less work so they can concentrate on protesting crap. I read somewhere that the students in one school organized and actually petitioned for auto-passes so they could concentrate on social issues. Waving around dildos while funny, is nothing more than a symptom of the rot that is killing the next generation's education.
I'd have to disagree. In undergrad at Rock and Pointy Stick Polytechnic there was literally a protest march every week almost precisely at 12.30. It was great fun. Whether or not you joined in depending almost completely on how many members of the protest were easy on the eyes.
The whole thing was just entertainment and something to do for fun. Very few people took it seriously. (I'll note at Rock and Pointy Stick Community College there were no protests. People didn't have time for that nonsense).
Now this, well they wouldn't have done that though, because you look like stupid babies. Mom and Dad would not be proud.
Yeah, but not everyone has the right to carry weaponry for self defence, that right is granted or revoked by society.
Thats is a matter of opinion and the difference between subjects and citizens.
The fact it's a matter of opinion proves my point. Millions of people get by day to day without the right to carry weapons, just because some societies think it's their right to carry weaponry doesn't make it a basic human right, it makes it a right those particular societies decided to grant. Those same communities can at a later date decide that the individual's ability to carry a weapon infringes on the safety of the community as a whole sufficiently that the right is revoked.
Thus it is not a "Everyone has the right..." it's a "Some societies grant the right...".
Based on what I've read, at the moment Americans seem to be about 50/50 on whether or not the right to carry weaponry should continue.
By matter of opinion I mean whether or not rights even exist is a matter of opinion. In the US certain minimum rights are codified (the founders mistakenly believed all the rest would be protected at the state level, boy where they wrong).
Frazzled wrote: By matter of opinion I mean whether or not rights even exist is a matter of opinion. In the US certain minimum rights are codified (the founders mistakenly believed all the rest would be protected at the state level, boy where they wrong).
All rights are matters of opinion.
It's a matter of opinion whether there SHOULD be natural inalienable rights, but the fact is there isn't unless society decides there should be and puts effort in to supporting them.
But the fact society has to decide should indicative that rights aren't universal, they only become universal once society decides they should be.
Because, let's be clear, some of the most tragic events made in American schools were made by students bringing concealed weapons inside and fire at will on their unaware comrades before usually dying.
And now, there is a law allowing them to do so? You really don't see where is the problem in that?
If you think that concealed carry permits you to "fire at will on your unaware comrades before usually dying," you need to re-read the text of the law.
Murder is illegal. You already have a law against it. Why would an additional law stop anybody? Very silly, tbh.
Does your right to self defense end on a college campus?
No, but I think you also have the right to not feel threatened on a college campus. Knowing there are guns hiding around tend to give that feeling.
Also, you can defend yourself without using, carrying or showing guns. I can teach you, if you want. You just have to come in my country and leave your gun at home. It's not so scary, promise.
The good old "The campus will run red with blood". Except on those campuses that have alreday allowed concealed carry this has not proven the case. Ever.
Yes, but I believe the head of the campus had the right to change that policy. Not anymore with this law, it removes their right to do something they think in the best interests of their students.
Like I say lower, it's all about control. If concealed weapons are forbidden, people bringing some can be in trouble if they are found with some on them. And if they are bad people...you can act swifter. Better than just letting people pass with no question and then get surprised when another tragic event happen again - even with "good guys having concealed guns" being inside and totally unable to do anything - because most of them are civilians, anyway.
Sarouan wrote: Because, let's be clear, some of the most tragic events made in American schools were made by students bringing concealed weapons inside and fire at will on their unaware comrades before usually dying.
Not relevant to the concealed carry discussion. But nice effort.
Sure, nice work from you dodging the true point again. It's so handy, indeed.
You can't say it's not relevant in that case. Because, let's be honest, allowing concealed carry in more places makes it much more difficult to control people before the act happening (and thus preventing it). I think you know that very well.
Sarouan wrote: And now, there is a law allowing them to do so? You really don't see where is the problem in that?
There is a law allowing people to "fire at will on their unaware comrades"? Really? When was this enacted?
This law just allows people to bring concealed guns inside a classroom. It thus makes criminals' job easier, because of the reason said just above.
Because a murderer will conceal his weapon anyway, so if he is checked before using it on his comrades, you can't say anything at all at him. After all, he didn't break the law by bringing one and hiding it, right? Of course, after his deed done...well, it will be too late anyway. You just count the bodies of the slain innocents.
Because criminals and would be murderers, as you pointed out above, didn't follow the law to begin with. So this levels the playing field for the law abiding. And guns are not "holy", they are not some sort of magical talisman. They are a tool.
A tool not needed on a campus. Keep them at home.
And yes, criminals don't follow the law, but they sure gladly take advantage of those who make their task easier. Concealed carry allowed anywhere? How can't you see how much of a gift it is for them? You seriously count about "good guys able to defend themselves"? On a campus, where most people are students, most of them not really prepared to a Crisis situation, let not speak about using their gun right? Because I don't remember people owning guns being forced to a full education course about that kind of things in America.
If you want to bring your citizens to be really prepared to do the police's - or even the army's - job, you don't just pass laws allowing guns everywhere. You teach them what exactly they must do. This law will not bring anything good by itself. It's just a useless tool as it is, only to bring a false sense of security for gun owners too scared to get out without having one on them at all times.
Students and teachers protesting people exercising their rights is incredibly stupid.
If they are protesting against people who have guns, yes, you can say that. Because they could be shot.
But I have another word for that.
Apparently, the only good right is the right to bring guns anywhere, no matter the situation or without restraint. Others rights like protesting against a law you don't feel right as a non gun owner? These aren't true "rights", are they?
Because, let's be clear, some of the most tragic events made in American schools were made by students bringing concealed weapons inside and fire at will on their unaware comrades before usually dying.
And now, there is a law allowing them to do so? You really don't see where is the problem in that?
If you think that concealed carry permits you to "fire at will on your unaware comrades before usually dying," you need to re-read the text of the law.
Murder is illegal. You already have a law against it. Why would an additional law stop anybody? Very silly, tbh.
You don't get my point. My point is this law is just making criminals' job easier, because what they will do first is, indeed, bring a concealed weapon at the place they intent to kill people. It's just a matter of fact that they don't really want to be stopped before doing the deed. The best way for that - and most simple as well - is not to catch attention and just hide the thing before it is needed. Also, surprise helps a lot to kill people before they get a chance to react.
On the other hand, keeping guns - concealed or not - out of the campus territory (taken there are control points, of course) won't make it easier. Because if they get checked and concealed weapons were found, there would be immediate suspicion. With this law? Well, it's just another student following the law, nothing to see citizen! Of course, when they start shooting a bit later, it will be too late.
I say that law is taking the problem in the wrong way. Bringing more guns inside will not make the place safer; it just increases a lot more the chances of a tragic event happening (be it by accident or intention, mind you).
That you keep saying it's not a big deal in itself just shows you don't think at all on the consequences of such an event, just because you want to keep your guns anywhere even if it isn't really necessary.
No, but I think you also have the right to not feel threatened on a college campus. Knowing there are guns hiding around tend to give that feeling.
Also, you can defend yourself without using, carrying or showing guns. I can teach you, if you want. You just have to come in my country and leave your gun at home. It's not so scary, promise.
I love youngins who think they are invulnerable.
There is an old Texas saying. "Never mess with old guys. They are too tired too fight and might just kill you instead."
Because a murderer will conceal his weapon anyway, so if he is checked before using it on his comrades, you can't say anything at all at him. After all, he didn't break the law by bringing one and hiding it, right? Of course, after his deed done...well, it will be too late anyway. You just count the bodies of the slain innocents.
On the other hand, keeping guns - concealed or not - out of the campus territory (taken there are control points, of course) won't make it easier. Because if they get checked and concealed weapons were found, there would be immediate suspicion. With this law? Well, it's just another student following the law, nothing to see citizen! Of course, when they start shooting a bit later, it will be too late.
Pretty much every state in the US (except maybe Alaska) issued ID card, usually with the persons picture on it. Here is an example of a Texan permit:
So yeah, if you search someone they will ask. And with any LEO interaction, you hand your permit to them with your primary ID so they know you are carrying.
Does your right to self defense end on a college campus?
No, but I think you also have the right to not feel threatened on a college campus. Knowing there are guns hiding around tend to give that feeling.
legislating on "feels" is a wee bit silly, especially for a constituionally protected right, and a college campus is a place to be taken out of your comfort zone, like, by definition.
Also, you can defend yourself without using, carrying or showing guns. I can teach you, if you want. You just have to come in my country and leave your gun at home. It's not so scary, promise.
I'm not a small person, and engage in 6-12 hours of close combat training and sparring every week. Granted most of it is with a sword, but I can probably put just about anyone onto the ground with relative ease if I have to, my grappling repertoire is pretty solid. All that said, a firearm is by far the most effective means of self defense in a life threatening situation and the one I would go to first and foremost if I was put in one. Yes, there are other options, but they come with a dramatically increased risk.
You don't get my point. My point is this law is just making criminals' job easier, because what they will do first is, indeed, bring a concealed weapon at the place they intent to kill people. It's just a matter of fact that they don't really want to be stopped before doing the deed. The best way for that - and most simple as well - is not to catch attention and just hide the thing before it is needed. Also, surprise helps a lot to kill people before they get a chance to react.
On the other hand, keeping guns - concealed or not - out of the campus territory (taken there are control points, of course) won't make it easier. Because if they get checked and concealed weapons were found, there would be immediate suspicion. With this law? Well, it's just another student following the law, nothing to see citizen! Of course, when they start shooting a bit later, it will be too late.
I say that law is taking the problem in the wrong way. Bringing more guns inside will not make the place safer; it just increases a lot more the chances of a tragic event happening (be it by accident or intention, mind you).
That you keep saying it's not a big deal in itself just shows you don't think at all on the consequences of such an event, just because you want to keep your guns anywhere even if it isn't really necessary.
How many people do you think will be able to take advantage of this law? How many will actually do so?
Your argument of criminals using this law to their advantage strikes me as being fairly absurd.
You don't get my point. My point is this law is just making criminals' job easier, because what they will do first is, indeed, bring a concealed weapon at the place they intent to kill people. It's just a matter of fact that they don't really want to be stopped before doing the deed. The best way for that - and most simple as well - is not to catch attention and just hide the thing before it is needed. Also, surprise helps a lot to kill people before they get a chance to react.
On the other hand, keeping guns - concealed or not - out of the campus territory (taken there are control points, of course) won't make it easier. Because if they get checked and concealed weapons were found, there would be immediate suspicion. With this law? Well, it's just another student following the law, nothing to see citizen! Of course, when they start shooting a bit later, it will be too late.
I say that law is taking the problem in the wrong way. Bringing more guns inside will not make the place safer; it just increases a lot more the chances of a tragic event happening (be it by accident or intention, mind you).
That you keep saying it's not a big deal in itself just shows you don't think at all on the consequences of such an event, just because you want to keep your guns anywhere even if it isn't really necessary.
How many people do you think will be able to take advantage of this law? How many will actually do so?
Your argument of criminals using this law to their advantage strikes me as being fairly absurd.
Especially since you have to get a background check to get a carry permit, so... no criminals will be able to get one. Then we go right back to, oh their going to illegally carry a weapon anyways, at which point there is zero difference from before.
No, but I think you also have the right to not feel threatened on a college campus. Knowing there are guns hiding around tend to give that feeling.
Also, you can defend yourself without using, carrying or showing guns. I can teach you, if you want. You just have to come in my country and leave your gun at home. It's not so scary, promise.
I love youngins who think they are invulnerable.
There is an old Texas saying. "Never mess with old guys. They are too tired too fight and might just kill you instead."
You have this shirt Fraz?
As for the point you replied to, my 5ft 3inch 130 pound wife has been threatened by a 6ft3inch 270 pound ass hat in an area where you cannot carry even with a permit. Trust me when I say that if you asked her about defending herself she would choose option Kimber every time over option MMA fight.
No, but I think you also have the right to not feel threatened on a college campus. Knowing there are guns hiding around tend to give that feeling.
Disregard weapons that bad people carry on campuses NOW, law be danged, be scared of the folks with clean backgrounds who were checked out by the same people who eyeball our cops, that statistically commit crimes at a much smaller rate than the general population. That's the ticket.
On a campus, where most people are students, most of them not really prepared to a Crisis situation, let not speak about using their gun right? Because I don't remember people owning guns being forced to a full education course about that kind of things in America.
College is a continual, crushing, crisis situation in my experience. Secondly, you must have at least a modicum of shooting ability to get a CHL issued for to you, to say nothing of how many CHL holders shoot - a lot- because its fun. Thirdly, you ARE required to attend a class as part of your qualification for a carry license. You don't simply get to strap the pistol on and walk out your door in this state. If asked for your ID for whatever reason, should you not be able to produce your permit for the nice policeman, that is a no-no. If this was brought about because someone realized you had a weapon on you, guess where you go? HINT: You will not be continuing to class. Your sex life may greatly "improve" in the coming months.
If they are protesting against people who have guns, yes, you can say that. Because they could be shot.
Extremely insulting. The people they are protesting ARE NOT the sort to shoot them out of hand. This point deserves no further attention.
Sarouan wrote: No, but I think you also have the right to not feel threatened on a college campus. Knowing there are guns hiding around tend to give that feeling.
Also, you can defend yourself without using, carrying or showing guns. I can teach you, if you want. You just have to come in my country and leave your gun at home. It's not so scary, promise.
I'll keep using the most efficient tool for the job thank you.
These people feel threatened? That is unfortunate. For them. Rights do not end where feelings begin. If they are actually being threatened then that is illegal and should be reported to the appropriate authorities. Or they can find an educational establishment that caters to their sensitivity.
Sarouan wrote: Yes, but I believe the head of the campus had the right to change that policy. Not anymore with this law, it removes their right to do something they think in the best interests of their students.
You mean that unelected bureaucrats cannot deny people their protections under the law? Oh the humanity...
Sarouan wrote: Like I say lower, it's all about control. If concealed weapons are forbidden, people bringing some can be in trouble if they are found with some on them. And if they are bad people...you can act swifter. Better than just letting people pass with no question and then get surprised when another tragic event happen again - even with "good guys having concealed guns" being inside and totally unable to do anything - because most of them are civilians, anyway.
So on the basis of indistinct, vague, or otherwise unmade threats we should deprive people of their rights? And lawful gun owners are totally unable to do anything... like when the Principal of Pearl High School stopped a student intent on murdering others. Or a concealed carrier in New Life Church stopping an attack in which the assailant wielded an AR15? Or the New York Mills AT&T Store where an employee saved the lives of others from a disgruntled former co-worker? Or what about the Freewill Baptist Church where an assailant armed with a shotgun was stopped by a parishioner? The Clackmas Town Center Mall? Mystic Strip Club? A construction site on Rio Grande & MLK in Austin Texas? Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital? All of those are example of civilians with firearms who were able to stop an attack.
Sarouan wrote: Sure, nice work from you dodging the true point again. It's so handy, indeed.
You can't say it's not relevant in that case. Because, let's be honest, allowing concealed carry in more places makes it much more difficult to control people before the act happening (and thus preventing it). I think you know that very well.
OK, if you insist on making me address the point I will explain just why it was a bad point. In almost all cases the students involved were ineligible to legally carry their firearm on campus under the concealed carry law. So I am correct in saying that it is not relevant.
Sarouan wrote: This law just allows people to bring concealed guns inside a classroom. It thus makes criminals' job easier, because of the reason said just above.
Because a murderer will conceal his weapon anyway, so if he is checked before using it on his comrades, you can't say anything at all at him. After all, he didn't break the law by bringing one and hiding it, right? Of course, after his deed done...well, it will be too late anyway. You just count the bodies of the slain innocents.
Because criminals intent on murdering people (which is illegal) are going to follow the law preventing them taking their firearms on campus, right?
So far your circular logic isn't working. Neither is your appeal to emotion.
Sarouan wrote: A tool not needed on a campus. Keep them at home.
My right to self defense does not end at the gates of a college campus.
Sarouan wrote: And yes, criminals don't follow the law, but they sure gladly take advantage of those who make their task easier. Concealed carry allowed anywhere? How can't you see how much of a gift it is for them? You seriously count about "good guys able to defend themselves"? On a campus, where most people are students, most of them not really prepared to a Crisis situation, let not speak about using their gun right? Because I don't remember people owning guns being forced to a full education course about that kind of things in America.
If you want to bring your citizens to be really prepared to do the police's - or even the army's - job, you don't just pass laws allowing guns everywhere. You teach them what exactly they must do. This law will not bring anything good by itself. It's just a useless tool as it is, only to bring a false sense of security for gun owners too scared to get out without having one on them at all times.
I keep hearing the same discredited argument that this makes mass shootings easier - yet no evidence is provided. You are making assumptions and ignoring the fact that most mass shooters avoid places that allow firearms because it defeats their intended purpose, to cause as much damage as possible while encountering the least resistance.
No one is saying that civilians should be doing the job of the army or police. Your arguments are getting more and more ridiculous.
Sarouan wrote: If they are protesting against people who have guns, yes, you can say that. Because they could be shot.
But I have another word for that.
Apparently, the only good right is the right to bring guns anywhere, no matter the situation or without restraint. Others rights like protesting against a law you don't feel right as a non gun owner? These aren't true "rights", are they?
Who said that the only good right is the Second Amendment? I fully support the right of the students and professors to protest and use their First Amendment rights. That does not give them carte blanche to strip the rights of others.
As for the claim that they "could be shot" for protesting that is wholly irrational and without merit.
Sarouan wrote: So, in your opinion, it is necessary to allow concealed carry in campus? The very places where people gather to study, and have nothing to do with protecting your home by the way, and where you absolutely don't need to bring more means for violence inside?
And you don't understand some young people don't feel exactly safe while knowing one of their comrades next to them may be carrying a hidden weapon and use it whenever he wants, just because he snaps or something?
Because, let's be clear, some of the most tragic events made in American schools were made by students bringing concealed weapons inside and fire at will on their unaware comrades before usually dying.
And now, there is a law allowing them to do so? You really don't see where is the problem in that?
If you think the intent is helping "western heroes ready to kill the crazy ones with their holy guns", well to me, that just makes easier the job of criminals and would be murderers to do their job. Because they will shoot first and use surprise to their full advantage.
You really don't see where is the danger in that? To me, it's quite understandable these students and teachers would protest. Calling it "stupidity" is, IMHO, the true mark of irresponsibility.
There are people who don't feel safe with opposite sex in their bathroom or locker room either. Should we bar them from going into those places even if they say they identify as the opposite sex?
Your position seems a lot like that. People exericising their rights make others uncomfortable, so we should abridge those rights.
CptJake wrote: Perhaps reading what I wrote would help. I said 'not in the eyes of folks who understand our constitution.'
If you understand our constitution, you understand it has an amendment process, and that the whole Bill Of Rights amendments are historically pretty important. Understanding that will (or maybe should) explain why valuing guns is not silly.
Yes, you did say 'not in the eyes of folks who understand our constitution'. You said that in response to someone who commented that a thing was lawful but stupid. Whether or not the thing is actually stupid, the fact that it is in the constitution does not decide whether the thing is silly or not.
Consider if another country had in their constitution a clause that read "A well lubricated dildo, being necessary to the happiness of a free person, the right of the people to keep and bear dildos, shall not be infringed." That would be lawful. It would also be silly. If a person were to comment that that was silly, it would be a total fething nonsense to respond that it wasn't silly, because it was in the constitution.
Just because a thing is the law, it doesn't mean people can't believe it is a silly thing. This is a basic, obvious thing.
Frazzled wrote: Society permits nothing. Its people forcing their society to recognize their rights that is something.
That's nonsense. People only 'force something' by taking some form of collective action. By acting as part of society.
You don't get my point. My point is this law is just making criminals' job easier, because what they will do first is, indeed, bring a concealed weapon at the place they intent to kill people. It's just a matter of fact that they don't really want to be stopped before doing the deed. The best way for that - and most simple as well - is not to catch attention and just hide the thing before it is needed. Also, surprise helps a lot to kill people before they get a chance to react.
On the other hand, keeping guns - concealed or not - out of the campus territory (taken there are control points, of course) won't make it easier. Because if they get checked and concealed weapons were found, there would be immediate suspicion. With this law? Well, it's just another student following the law, nothing to see citizen! Of course, when they start shooting a bit later, it will be too late.
This is absolute nonsense. Your argument is that prohibiting legal concealed carry will negate mass shootings. Give me a SINGLE case where a mass shooter has been checked for weapons, determined to be OK to have that weapon as a concealed carry permit holder, and then carried out a mass shooting.
Provide me with numbers, concede that you're wrong, or join the Ignore train.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Give me a SINGLE case where a mass shooter has been checked for weapons, determined to be OK to have that weapon as a concealed carry permit holder, and then carried out a mass shooting.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Give me a SINGLE case where a mass shooter has been checked for weapons, determined to be OK to have that weapon as a concealed carry permit holder, and then carried out a mass shooting.
CptJake wrote: Perhaps reading what I wrote would help. I said 'not in the eyes of folks who understand our constitution.'
If you understand our constitution, you understand it has an amendment process, and that the whole Bill Of Rights amendments are historically pretty important. Understanding that will (or maybe should) explain why valuing guns is not silly.
Yes, you did say 'not in the eyes of folks who understand our constitution'. You said that in response to someone who commented that a thing was lawful but stupid. Whether or not the thing is actually stupid, the fact that it is in the constitution does not decide whether the thing is silly or not.
Consider if another country had in their constitution a clause that read "A well lubricated dildo, being necessary to the happiness of a free person, the right of the people to keep and bear dildos, shall not be infringed." That would be lawful. It would also be silly. If a person were to comment that that was silly, it would be a total fething nonsense to respond that it wasn't silly, because it was in the constitution.
Just because a thing is the law, it doesn't mean people can't believe it is a silly thing. This is a basic, obvious thing..
And again you are arguing against a point not made. I again never said it wasn't silly because it was in the constitution. I explained if you understand OUR constitution (not the one in StrawMan Land that protects the rights to own dildos) including the fact it has an amendment process and the reasons we have a Bill of Rights including this amendment you would understand why valuing guns is not silly. Because it isn't. Our country had (and has) plenty of very valid reasons to protect the right, and valuing the tool that enables that isn't going to be silly. Show me the StrawMan Land constitution and the history as to why they value dildos, and then maybe we can make a reasonable comparison.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Legislating based on feelings is silly, except when I feel I need a gun to protect myself, then it's completely valid!
FWIW the gun-genie is, in my opinion, out of the bottle in the US. There's too many weapons and not enough will to remove them from society.
Defense against aggressors with firearms has the best chance of success when the defenders also have firearms. That's not feeling, that's fact.
And why do people feel the need to defend themselves from someone with a gun? After all, the risk of getting shot is rather low, no?
Really, the 'defend against gun' part is irrelevant. Defending against a threat (knife, bat, big guy intent on beating you to death) is a lot easier with a gun than without.
And why do people feel the need to defend themselves from someone with a gun? After all, the risk of getting shot is rather low, no?
Is this a serious question? Because they don't want to be raped, or have their head cut off on TV, because they don't want to die by said guy with gun?
And the chance of that being something you have to worry about is incredibly low...And the chance of having a gun helping you in the situation isn't all that high either.
So basically, people feel the need to carry a weapon because of fear of something that is really unlikely. Makes them look silly, much like Sheldon Cooper in his disaster preparation drills...
skyth wrote: And the chance of that being something you have to worry about is incredibly low...And the chance of having a gun helping you in the situation isn't all that high either.
So basically, people feel the need to carry a weapon because of fear of something that is really unlikely. Makes them look silly, much like Sheldon Cooper in his disaster preparation drills...
So... since all the protesting against CCL holders in college is in fear of something even more unlikely... you'd think that should be the first target of ire, right?
And why do people feel the need to defend themselves from someone with a gun? After all, the risk of getting shot is rather low, no?
Is this a serious question? Because they don't want to be raped, or have their head cut off on TV, because they don't want to die by said guy with gun?
But does guns make that less likely? Why then US has far bigger chance of getting killed than countries with less guns...If guns make country safer why is US one of the unsafest 1st world countries?
Hint: Guns don't create safety. More like reverse.
skyth wrote: And the chance of that being something you have to worry about is incredibly low...And the chance of having a gun helping you in the situation isn't all that high either.
Irrelevant comrade. My chance of needing the amendment to protect against the quartering of British troops is low too, but we still have it.
And it wasn't statistically low to the college freshman dragged off, raped and killed (by being beaten to death) behind a building at UT in the last 12 months, which is where this is at.
skyth wrote: And the chance of that being something you have to worry about is incredibly low...And the chance of having a gun helping you in the situation isn't all that high either.
Irrelevant comrade. My chance of needing the amendment to protect against the quartering of British troops is low too, but we still have it.
And it wasn't statistically low to the college freshman dragged off, raped and killed (by being beaten to death) behind a building at UT in the last 12 months, which is where this is at.
A) Whether you look silly or not has nothing to do whether something is legal or not.
B) Most situations like that that happen in college, having a gun won't help as they are taken by surprise or by someone they know...Or they're drunk/drugged.
And why do people feel the need to defend themselves from someone with a gun? After all, the risk of getting shot is rather low, no?
Is this a serious question? Because they don't want to be raped, or have their head cut off on TV, because they don't want to die by said guy with gun?
But does guns make that less likely? Why then US has far bigger chance of getting killed than countries with less guns...If guns make country safer why is US one of the unsafest 1st world countries?
Hint: Guns don't create safety. More like reverse.
If the bad guy has a gun and you don't then yes its much more safe for the bad guy. I agree completely.
@Ouze- He was not checked for weapons as even concealed carriers are not allowed to carry weapons into a night club. He had a permit yes, but that permit did not permit him to go there since there is a state law against carrying in bars and night clubs
I am absolutely lost on the whole why would you defend against someone with a gun thing. Do you just plan on taking the shot like cow in line at the slaughterhouse or something? Sorry, Americans are brought up to stand up for themselves against threat, not just take it like some pansy muppet. There is no honor in dying without resistance.
skyth wrote: And the chance of that being something you have to worry about is incredibly low...And the chance of having a gun helping you in the situation isn't all that high either.
Irrelevant comrade. My chance of needing the amendment to protect against the quartering of British troops is low too, but we still have it.
And it wasn't statistically low to the college freshman dragged off, raped and killed (by being beaten to death) behind a building at UT in the last 12 months, which is where this is at.
A) Whether you look silly or not has nothing to do whether something is legal or not.
B) Most situations like that that happen in college, having a gun won't help as they are taken by surprise or by someone they know...Or they're drunk/drugged.
CCs are like protection-it is better to have it and not need it then need it and not have it.
More importantly who are you to tell others what they can or cannot do to protect themselves? You're a college age male. Pfft.
skyth wrote: And the chance of that being something you have to worry about is incredibly low...And the chance of having a gun helping you in the situation isn't all that high either.
Irrelevant comrade. My chance of needing the amendment to protect against the quartering of British troops is low too, but we still have it.
And it wasn't statistically low to the college freshman dragged off, raped and killed (by being beaten to death) behind a building at UT in the last 12 months, which is where this is at.
And I found 2 news stories from deaths in 2016 at UT. Out of 50k students enrolled. That is 0.004%. Feeling the need to carry a gun to 'combat' a chance that small of anything happening to you...It's basically being a coward. living in fear is no way to live. Really shows how silly the people that feel the need to carry are...
And why do people feel the need to defend themselves from someone with a gun? After all, the risk of getting shot is rather low, no?
Is this a serious question? Because they don't want to be raped, or have their head cut off on TV, because they don't want to die by said guy with gun?
But does guns make that less likely? Why then US has far bigger chance of getting killed than countries with less guns...If guns make country safer why is US one of the unsafest 1st world countries?
Hint: Guns don't create safety. More like reverse.
By people using illegal firearms, in an illegal manner. Not sure why this has to keep getting explained...
The criminal use of firearms is what drives that number so high. All these laws do is level of the playing field for the law abiding citizens.
skyth wrote: And the chance of that being something you have to worry about is incredibly low...And the chance of having a gun helping you in the situation isn't all that high either.
Irrelevant comrade. My chance of needing the amendment to protect against the quartering of British troops is low too, but we still have it.
And it wasn't statistically low to the college freshman dragged off, raped and killed (by being beaten to death) behind a building at UT in the last 12 months, which is where this is at.
A) Whether you look silly or not has nothing to do whether something is legal or not.
B) Most situations like that that happen in college, having a gun won't help as they are taken by surprise or by someone they know...Or they're drunk/drugged.
CCs are like protection-it is better to have it and not need it then need it and not have it.
So you always carry a week's worth of food and water and clothes with you every where you go? Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it, right? Always carry a flashlight with you? Really, this is Sheldon Cooper levels of silliness about needing to be prepared for something that is extremely unlikely.
More importantly who are you to tell others what they can or cannot do to protect themselves? You're a college age male. Pfft.
And that is basically the argument and really shows why people who feel the need to carry look like idiots.
And why do people feel the need to defend themselves from someone with a gun? After all, the risk of getting shot is rather low, no?
Is this a serious question? Because they don't want to be raped, or have their head cut off on TV, because they don't want to die by said guy with gun?
But does guns make that less likely? Why then US has far bigger chance of getting killed than countries with less guns...If guns make country safer why is US one of the unsafest 1st world countries?
Hint: Guns don't create safety. More like reverse.
Actually, that's not quite the case. The US appears to be more dangerous than it actually is. There is no standard definition of what "murder" is between nations, and what is compared is what nations self report. The US simply has, by a large margin, the broadest definition of what murder actually is. In addition to this the US is a vastly diverse nation. While diversity has it's benefits one of the drawbacks is added conflict.
And why do people feel the need to defend themselves from someone with a gun? After all, the risk of getting shot is rather low, no?
Is this a serious question? Because they don't want to be raped, or have their head cut off on TV, because they don't want to die by said guy with gun?
But does guns make that less likely? Why then US has far bigger chance of getting killed than countries with less guns...If guns make country safer why is US one of the unsafest 1st world countries?
Hint: Guns don't create safety. More like reverse.
By people using illegal firearms, in an illegal manner. Not sure why this has to keep getting explained...
The criminal use of firearms is what drives that number so high. All these laws do is level of the playing field for the law abiding citizens.
Why don't we get rid of all the laws about rape? After all, only criminals engaging in illegal manner do it...Why not level the playing field for the law abiding citizens?
And why do people feel the need to defend themselves from someone with a gun? After all, the risk of getting shot is rather low, no?
Is this a serious question? Because they don't want to be raped, or have their head cut off on TV, because they don't want to die by said guy with gun?
But does guns make that less likely? Why then US has far bigger chance of getting killed than countries with less guns...If guns make country safer why is US one of the unsafest 1st world countries?
Hint: Guns don't create safety. More like reverse.
By people using illegal firearms, in an illegal manner. Not sure why this has to keep getting explained...
The criminal use of firearms is what drives that number so high. All these laws do is level of the playing field for the law abiding citizens.
Why don't we get rid of all the laws about rape? After all, only criminals engaging in illegal manner do it...Why not level the playing field for the law abiding citizens?
Probably because there's no such thing as defensive rape?
And that is basically the argument and really shows why people who feel the need to carry look like idiots.
Well, I'm sure concealed carry permit holders everywhere are devastated by your opinion of them.
A house fire's unlikely, yet we still have fire extinguishers and rope ladders for our third floor. Some guy on a plastic doll forum thinks that's ridiculous? Oh, well. Ain't his house.
skyth wrote: And the chance of that being something you have to worry about is incredibly low...And the chance of having a gun helping you in the situation isn't all that high either.
Irrelevant comrade. My chance of needing the amendment to protect against the quartering of British troops is low too, but we still have it.
And it wasn't statistically low to the college freshman dragged off, raped and killed (by being beaten to death) behind a building at UT in the last 12 months, which is where this is at.
And I found 2 news stories from deaths in 2016 at UT. Out of 50k students enrolled. That is 0.004%. Feeling the need to carry a gun to 'combat' a chance that small of anything happening to you...It's basically being a coward. living in fear is no way to live. Really shows how silly the people that feel the need to carry are...
Again who are you to tell someone else what they can and can't do, should or should not do? Can you provide you CV on tactical and defensive criminality? How about personal defense training? Where are you an instructor at? For how many years? How many students have you taught? What studies and research have you done concerning women, the aged, and the inform? What exactly are your qualifications, let alone authority to provide advice and counsel to anyone on this issue?
skyth wrote: And the chance of that being something you have to worry about is incredibly low...And the chance of having a gun helping you in the situation isn't all that high either.
Irrelevant comrade. My chance of needing the amendment to protect against the quartering of British troops is low too, but we still have it.
And it wasn't statistically low to the college freshman dragged off, raped and killed (by being beaten to death) behind a building at UT in the last 12 months, which is where this is at.
And I found 2 news stories from deaths in 2016 at UT. Out of 50k students enrolled. That is 0.004%. Feeling the need to carry a gun to 'combat' a chance that small of anything happening to you...It's basically being a coward. living in fear is no way to live. Really shows how silly the people that feel the need to carry are...
Again who are you to tell someone else what they can and can't do, should or should not do? Can you provide you CV on tactical and defensive criminality? How about personal defense training? Where are you an instructor at? For how many years? How many students have you taught? What studies and research have you done concerning women, the aged, and the inform? What exactly are your qualifications, let alone authority to provide advice and counsel to anyone on this issue?
If you would read, I'm not saying they can't. Just that it really shows how silly they are. They are living in fear for no good reason.
So you always carry a week's worth of food and water and clothes with you every where you go?
Like a grizzled wiener dog, my belly has carefully stored more than enough calories for a week. I've not seen where starvation leaps out and attacks me. I do have money in case I get hungry, so am prepared in case I have to eat...wait for it wait for it...at any time!
Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it, right? Always carry a flashlight with you?
My cellphone has a light on it so...yes.
Really, this is Sheldon Cooper levels of silliness about needing to be prepared for something that is extremely unlikely.
I have flood insurance but I've never been flooded. I have a fire extinguisher for the house but I've never even seen a house fire in person. I must just be silly.
If you would read, I'm not saying they can't. Just that it really shows how silly they are. They are living in fear for no good reason.
Your assumption that it is out of fear, reveals interesting things about yourself.
So you always carry a week's worth of food and water and clothes with you every where you go?
Like a grizzled wiener dog, my belly has carefully stored more than enough calories for a week. I've not seen where starvation leaps out and attacks me. I do have money in case I get hungry, so am prepared in case I have to eat...wait for it wait for it...at any time!
And an attacker leaping out and attacking you will prevent a gun from being effective as well.
Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it, right? Always carry a flashlight with you?
My cellphone has a light on it so...yes.
And that kills the battery quickly...
If you would read, I'm not saying they can't. Just that it really shows how silly they are. They are living in fear for no good reason.
Your assumption that it is out of fear, reveals interesting things about yourself.
Actually, I'm just using the arguments of the pro pecker enhancer side. They 'need' guns because a bad guy might try to get them. This is an argument based on fear. Since the chance of needing it and having it actually be useful in a situation is extremely small, it is not a rational argument as well. Just shows how silly the people are.
Actually, I'm just using the arguments of the pro pecker enhancer side. They 'need' guns because a bad guy might try to get them. This is an argument based on fear. Since the chance of needing it and having it actually be useful in a situation is extremely small, it is not a rational argument as well. Just shows how silly the people are.
No you are using your own arguments. Using your logic everyone who uses insurance, gets a flu or other vaccine, wears a seatbelt, locks doors, or doesn't play in traffic are not being rational and just living in fear.
Insurance in most cases is mandated. Remember the 'huge' uproar about making healthy people buy health insurance? Plus you WILL get sick...
Same with seatbelts(plus the facr that car accidents are many orders of magnitude more likely than being in a position where having a gun will help)
You WILL be exposed to the Flu.
Locking doors is a minor thing you don't have to go out of your way to do plus thefts again are orders of nagnitude more likely than being in the position where having a gun will help.
These are bad examples and represent reasonable precautions. 'Needing' to carry a gun with you is not one of those and represents an irrational fear.
Flood insurance is not mandated. Home insurance is not mandated. Fire insurance is not mandated. For most people the flu is a minor thing. We have to get out of the pool or away from trees if there is thunder heard, but your chances of getting hit by lightning are well the chance of being hit by lightning.
I guess we're all just acting irrationally. I am glad through your intensive knowledge of what is a major or minor threat and are here to tel us when people are being silly. I mean you are the expert...oh wait why is that again?
I think I may have to add someone to my ignore list after years.
Well hey, you've already issued death threats against me because I stand up to your garbage arguments so hey...Like the fact that those insurances are actually mandated by mortgage providers...
And feeling the need to carry a gun on you is akin to feeling the need to wear a flotation device while swimming in your pool when you already know how to swim.
skyth wrote: Well hey, you've already issued death threats against me because I stand up to your garbage arguments so hey...Like the fact that those insurances are actually mandated by mortgage providers...
I don't have a mortgage.
And feeling the need to carry a gun on you is akin to feeling the need to wear a flotation device while swimming in your pool when you already know how to swim.
Inappropriate analogy. That would be appropriate if the firearm was merely an additional protection to something I had or knew. Your analogy would only work if I were arguing one should carry a knife in addition to a firearm, as the firearm effectively makes the knife redundant.
Unless you're arguing that they don't need a firearm because their breath is already a weapon or something.
I guess to tie this to the topic, does this mean you're arguing its just silly for them to have Ds and march with them because its redundant as well?
No, it's an entirely appropriate analogy. You just don't like it because it's true. You already have means of dealing with things where a firearm would 'help'. You have legs and feet to run away with which is generally more successful.
And, yes...I consider carrying the dildos to be a bit silly as well. Though I consider it less silly than carrying a firearm because it is intended as political speech and really highlights how silly it is to 'need' to carry a gun.
What's that statistic that feminists keep quoting? 1 in 5 women will be sexually assaulted in their college experience? With stats like that I'm surprised feminists, as a whole, don't support campus carry.
(Note, the 1 in 5 statistic is actually complete garbage. However feminists claim it to be true so they should also admit women have a reasonable fear for their lives).
In the end, who really cares how useful an item is? Mormans wear magic underwear, women all over campus are handed out free rape whistles and pepper spray, and certain groups are wearing body cameras in case of police brutality. Let people do what they want if they aren't hurting anyone else.
skyth wrote: No, it's an entirely appropriate analogy. You just don't like it because it's true. You already have means of dealing with things where a firearm would 'help'. You have legs and feet to run away with which is generally more successful.
And, yes...I consider carrying the dildos to be a bit silly as well. Though I consider it less silly than carrying a firearm because it is intended as political speech and really highlights how silly it is to 'need' to carry a gun.
No, you're analogy is not true. Being in a life or death situation, where you would need to carry a firearm, you don't have other means to deal with it. If you have to kill someone to save yours, or someone elses life, please explain to me what other means an every day person would have to handle that situation.
I'll be waiting.
I'd also like to see where Frazzled threatened your life, cause I did a review of recent posts, and didn't see jack squat like that.
skyth wrote: No, it's an entirely appropriate analogy. You just don't like it because it's true. You already have means of dealing with things where a firearm would 'help'. You have legs and feet to run away with which is generally more successful.
.
I've never outrun a bullet before. In addition, in many situations you have no option to run. Running would be my first choice, but I might not be given the chance. Look at what happens at school shootings. Most of the time people get caught by surprise. The shooter is roaming the halls and the only way out of the classroom is to enter the hall. In cases like that ( Columbine, Sandy hook, Virginia Tech, Paduka, etc.) you turn that classroom into a bunker and make yourself an undesirable target. A firearm would go a long way with that.
In the FAR remote chance that you are in that situation (about the same chance of losing conciousness while swimming) your average person could run away or hide. If you are a sudden life or death situation, you don't have time to pull your gun and if you try you make yourself a target. Barring that, you have time to evade and hide. An 'average' person would likely freeze up trying to figure out what to do especially if given more choices.
The chance of being in the situation is extremely small. The chance of a gun helping is smaller still.
Feeling the 'need' to carry a gun with you in the normal course of life is irrational fear based behavior. The same as feeling the need to wear a flotation device while swimming.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The threat to shoot me was in another thread probably about a month ago. He receivef a mod warning for it and the post was scrubbed. Someone else referenced it more recently.
skyth wrote: In the FAR remote chance that you are in that situation (about the same chance of losing conciousness while swimming) your average person could run away or hide.
Well, that solves it. Gun control is asinine and those who advocate for it are cowards scared of those FAR remote chances that they will ever be in danger from a gun.
skyth wrote: In the FAR remote chance that you are in that situation (about the same chance of losing conciousness while swimming) your average person could run away or hide.
Well, that solves it. Gun control is asinine and those who advocate for it are cowards scared of those FAR remote chances that they will ever be in danger from a gun.
skyth wrote: No, it's an entirely appropriate analogy. You just don't like it because it's true. You already have means of dealing with things where a firearm would 'help'. You have legs and feet to run away with which is generally more successful.[/quote}
What if that person is handicapped? What if that person is old? What if that person is your average female who doesn't run as fast as your average male? What if that person is facing more than one person? I see you have failed to think outside your box of white male fit early 20 year old male.
And, yes...I consider carrying the dildos to be a bit silly as well. Though I consider it less silly than carrying a firearm because it is intended as political speech and really highlights how silly it is to 'need' to carry a gun.
So you're actually supportive of CHLers and OTCers then. Many persons who carry do so because they have the right to do so and are intentionally expressing that right because they can.
skyth wrote: In the FAR remote chance that you are in that situation (about the same chance of losing conciousness while swimming) your average person could run away or hide.
Well, that solves it. Gun control is asinine and those who advocate for it are cowards scared of those FAR remote chances that they will ever be in danger from a gun.
Straw man. That is not the argument here.
It is EXACTLY the argument you are using for 'not needing a gun'. And it works both ways.
And also, I'd like to point out that the 'it's really rare' argument keeps on getting spouted by the anti-gun control crowd. Funny how they don't like the argument being turned against them.
Feeling the 'need' to carry a gun with you in the normal course of life is irrational fear based behavior. The same as feeling the need to wear a flotation device while swimming.
Using safety equipment in general could be described as "fear based behavior." Wearing your seatbelt while driving, wearing a life preserver while on a boat, keeping a fire extinguisher in the kitchen, so on and so forth. It could also be described as prudent.
Your repeated attempts to denigrate people who take steps to improve their safety are very inappropriate, ignoring the fact that there are over a million violent crimes committed in the US each year. If you don't want to carry a gun, then don't, but don't insult people who do. It falls under the category of "stop doing what I don't like!" and is childish.
skyth wrote: In the FAR remote chance that you are in that situation (about the same chance of losing conciousness while swimming) your average person could run away or hide. If you are a sudden life or death situation, you don't have time to pull your gun and if you try you make yourself a target. Barring that, you have time to evade and hide. An 'average' person would likely freeze up trying to figure out what to do especially if given more choices.
You're one of those people who believes sub 1.5 second draw & shoot times are a myth, aren't you?
Sarouan wrote: So, in your opinion, it is necessary to allow concealed carry in campus? The very places where people gather to study, and have nothing to do with protecting your home by the way, and where you absolutely don't need to bring more means for violence inside?
And you don't understand some young people don't feel exactly safe while knowing one of their comrades next to them may be carrying a hidden weapon and use it whenever he wants, just because he snaps or something?
Because, let's be clear, some of the most tragic events made in American schools were made by students bringing concealed weapons inside and fire at will on their unaware comrades before usually dying.
And now, there is a law allowing them to do so? You really don't see where is the problem in that?
If you think the intent is helping "western heroes ready to kill the crazy ones with their holy guns", well to me, that just makes easier the job of criminals and would be murderers to do their job. Because they will shoot first and use surprise to their full advantage.
You really don't see where is the danger in that? To me, it's quite understandable these students and teachers would protest. Calling it "stupidity" is, IMHO, the true mark of irresponsibility.
There are people who don't feel safe with opposite sex in their bathroom or locker room either. Should we bar them from going into those places even if they say they identify as the opposite sex?
Your position seems a lot like that. People exericising their rights make others uncomfortable, so we should abridge those rights.
I found myself thinking the same thing as I read this thread. It hasn't explicitly been said here, but I really feel like many people who would be against guns because of fear are also people who would call fear of rape in bathrooms ridiculous. "This law makes the criminal's job easier" is the argument in both cases, but people only believe that argument in one case or the other, generally. Anecdotally, I have a friend who fits this perfectly. She was so gung-ho for telling people off for believing laws allowing people to use whatever restroom they want would result in rape, and yet refuses to accept that concealed carry permit holders are among the safest people to own firearms, because of fear.
Legislate by facts and science, not feelings. If you believe someone's preparations to be silly, that's fine, so long as the actual law is actually based on science instead of fear.
I'll be honest, I used to think we should get rid of guns entirely, but like someone else noted, the cat's out of the bag on that one. Now, if studies show that concealed carry permit holders are less likely to commit a violent act with those guns than a cop, then damn, let's do it.
As an aside, isn't "fearing firearms if they're visible" a reason we don't have open carry?
skyth wrote: In the FAR remote chance that you are in that situation (about the same chance of losing conciousness while swimming) your average person could run away or hide. If you are a sudden life or death situation, you don't have time to pull your gun and if you try you make yourself a target. Barring that, you have time to evade and hide. An 'average' person would likely freeze up trying to figure out what to do especially if given more choices.
You're one of those people who believes sub 1.5 second draw & shoot times are a myth, aren't you?
I alway found it funny that universities that espouse the virtue of the first amendment. The fourth, The Fifth, The 6th and pretty much th rest of the bill of rights. They will always says how the SECOND amendment is less important. I always felt that was hypocritical, especially because if they accept GOVT money, they are agents of the govt in my eye. So they should have not business deciding which right to enforce.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I alway found it funny that universities that espouse the virtue of the first amendment. The fourth, The Fifth, The 6th and pretty much th rest of the bill of rights. They will always says how the SECOND amendment is less important. I always felt that was hypocritical, especially because if they accept GOVT money, they are agents of the govt in my eye. So they should have not business deciding which right to enforce.
I once debated a teacher in high school about this very subject. When I compared the 1st Amendment to the 2nd she scoffed at me. She stated that the 1st was obviously more important because they listed it first. So, I then brought up that the 2nd was listed before the 3rd-10th Amendments. That must mean, by her logic, that the 2nd is more important than those. Her reply? Sending me to the office. Luckily the Principal was a pretty cool guy and had a talk to her about punishing students that out-debated her.
Concealed carry permit holders already have permission to carry concealed in Texas so I fail to see how letting them carry on campus at state universities makes anyone less safe. The same people who can carry elsewhere can now carry at school and concealed carry permit holders have, over time, proven themselves to be one of the least dangerous and most law abiding subsets of people. As to the motivations of people deciding to carry concealed, what does it matter? I don't care why law abiding people decide to exercise their rights in lawful ways, it's a free country and the motivations of others is of no concern to me.
Feeling the 'need' to carry a gun with you in the normal course of life is irrational fear based behavior. The same as feeling the need to wear a flotation device while swimming.
Using safety equipment in general could be described as "fear based behavior." Wearing your seatbelt while driving, wearing a life preserver while on a boat, keeping a fire extinguisher in the kitchen, so on and so forth. It could also be described as prudent.
Your repeated attempts to denigrate people who take steps to improve their safety are very inappropriate, ignoring the fact that there are over a million violent crimes committed in the US each year. If you don't want to carry a gun, then don't, but don't insult people who do. It falls under the category of "stop doing what I don't like!" and is childish.
Safety equipment used when there is a reasonable chance of needing it isn't fear based. It is, however when the threat isn-t reasonable.
Needing a weapon in the normal course of your day is not a reasonable percaution, especially when evasion is the safer method in general.
So go get your CCW and cary if you want. I'm not going to stop you. However I will have a lower opinion of you. It proves to me that you are either unreasonably paranoid or a gung ho bully.
skyth wrote: In the FAR remote chance that you are in that situation (about the same chance of losing conciousness while swimming) your average person could run away or hide. If you are a sudden life or death situation, you don't have time to pull your gun and if you try you make yourself a target. Barring that, you have time to evade and hide. An 'average' person would likely freeze up trying to figure out what to do especially if given more choices.
You're one of those people who believes sub 1.5 second draw & shoot times are a myth, aren't you?
Possible by a trained person? Sure.
Done in a high stress situation by an average person? That's a lot more questionable.
Feeling the 'need' to carry a gun with you in the normal course of life is irrational fear based behavior. The same as feeling the need to wear a flotation device while swimming.
Using safety equipment in general could be described as "fear based behavior." Wearing your seatbelt while driving, wearing a life preserver while on a boat, keeping a fire extinguisher in the kitchen, so on and so forth. It could also be described as prudent.
Your repeated attempts to denigrate people who take steps to improve their safety are very inappropriate, ignoring the fact that there are over a million violent crimes committed in the US each year. If you don't want to carry a gun, then don't, but don't insult people who do. It falls under the category of "stop doing what I don't like!" and is childish.
Safety equipment used when there is a reasonable chance of needing it isn't fear based. It is, however when the threat isn-t reasonable.
Needing a weapon in the normal course of your day is not a reasonable percaution, especially when evasion is the safer method in general.
The point of a CCW isnt to go hunting the bad guy. In many cases you will still go for evasion, the firearm can aid in that. If, for example, I were stuck in an active shooter situation, I would flee, the gun is there in case I were cornered, or to toss a couple suppressing shots if he peeked around a wall so I could run away.
skyth wrote: In the FAR remote chance that you are in that situation (about the same chance of losing conciousness while swimming) your average person could run away or hide. If you are a sudden life or death situation, you don't have time to pull your gun and if you try you make yourself a target. Barring that, you have time to evade and hide. An 'average' person would likely freeze up trying to figure out what to do especially if given more choices.
You're one of those people who believes sub 1.5 second draw & shoot times are a myth, aren't you?
Possible by a trained person? Sure.
Done in a high stress situation by an average person? That's a lot more questionable.
Done in a high stress situation by an average person? That's a lot more questionable.
You are now aware that one of the forms submitted with the Texas CHL, specifically CHL-100, contains in big bold letters: CERTIFICATE OF TRAINING which includes where, when, and what licensed instructor evaluated your ability to at least hit the broad side of a barn while inside it. Should the individual feel that this instruction is not sufficient there are many, many private shooting schools and instructors in the US now, and let's be honest...if you can afford to shoot more, who wouldnt?
However, I have the distinct impression that when you say "A trained person" what you really mean is more along the lines of "Agent of the state" ...regardless of anyone`s ability to actually shoot or deal with pressure. Am I wrong?
Sarouan wrote: So, in your opinion, it is necessary to allow concealed carry in campus? The very places where people gather to study, and have nothing to do with protecting your home by the way, and where you absolutely don't need to bring more means for violence inside?
And you don't understand some young people don't feel exactly safe while knowing one of their comrades next to them may be carrying a hidden weapon and use it whenever he wants, just because he snaps or something?
Because, let's be clear, some of the most tragic events made in American schools were made by students bringing concealed weapons inside and fire at will on their unaware comrades before usually dying.
And now, there is a law allowing them to do so? You really don't see where is the problem in that?
If you think the intent is helping "western heroes ready to kill the crazy ones with their holy guns", well to me, that just makes easier the job of criminals and would be murderers to do their job. Because they will shoot first and use surprise to their full advantage.
You really don't see where is the danger in that? To me, it's quite understandable these students and teachers would protest. Calling it "stupidity" is, IMHO, the true mark of irresponsibility.
There are people who don't feel safe with opposite sex in their bathroom or locker room either. Should we bar them from going into those places even if they say they identify as the opposite sex?
Your position seems a lot like that. People exericising their rights make others uncomfortable, so we should abridge those rights.
I found myself thinking the same thing as I read this thread. It hasn't explicitly been said here, but I really feel like many people who would be against guns because of fear are also people who would call fear of rape in bathrooms ridiculous. "This law makes the criminal's job easier" is the argument in both cases, but people only believe that argument in one case or the other, generally. Anecdotally, I have a friend who fits this perfectly. She was so gung-ho for telling people off for believing laws allowing people to use whatever restroom they want would result in rape, and yet refuses to accept that concealed carry permit holders are among the safest people to own firearms, because of fear.
Legislate by facts and science, not feelings. If you believe someone's preparations to be silly, that's fine, so long as the actual law is actually based on science instead of fear.
I'll be honest, I used to think we should get rid of guns entirely, but like someone else noted, the cat's out of the bag on that one. Now, if studies show that concealed carry permit holders are less likely to commit a violent act with those guns than a cop, then damn, let's do it.
As an aside, isn't "fearing firearms if they're visible" a reason we don't have open carry?
It's ironic that 8 times the number of people die in the U.S. from alcohol related causes than from being murdered in a gun related incident, yet the media, through advertising glorifies alcohol use. It's been my experience that some of the most vocal anti gun people have no problem with alcohol consumption or giving parties where alcohol is served. There are also those who have no problem using cartel supplied drugs, empowering the groups down in Mexico and other countries south who murder tens of thousands of people a year.
All antecdotal, I know, but I don't think I'd go broke betting that most on these boards know these kind of anti gun advocates.
Col. Dash wrote: @Ouze- He was not checked for weapons as even concealed carriers are not allowed to carry weapons into a night club. He had a permit yes, but that permit did not permit him to go there since there is a state law against carrying in bars and night clubs
I am absolutely lost on the whole why would you defend against someone with a gun thing. Do you just plan on taking the shot like cow in line at the slaughterhouse or something? Sorry, Americans are brought up to stand up for themselves against threat, not just take it like some pansy muppet. There is no honor in dying without resistance.
Who are you addressing with the second line?
cuda1179 wrote: I once debated a teacher in high school about this very subject. When I compared the 1st Amendment to the 2nd she scoffed at me. She stated that the 1st was obviously more important because they listed it first. So, I then brought up that the 2nd was listed before the 3rd-10th Amendments. That must mean, by her logic, that the 2nd is more important than those. Her reply? Sending me to the office. Luckily the Principal was a pretty cool guy and had a talk to her about punishing students that out-debated her.
Done in a high stress situation by an average person? That's a lot more questionable.
You are now aware that one of the forms submitted with the Texas CHL, specifically CHL-100, contains in big bold letters: CERTIFICATE OF TRAINING which includes where, when, and what licensed instructor evaluated your ability to at least hit the broad side of a barn while inside it. Should the individual feel that this instruction is not sufficient there are many, many private shooting schools and instructors in the US now, and let's be honest...if you can afford to shoot more, who wouldnt?
However, I have the distinct impression that when you say "A trained person" what you really mean is more along the lines of "Agent of the state" ...regardless of anyone`s ability to actually shoot or deal with pressure. Am I wrong?
I believe that was about firing from a draw within 1.5 seconds. Is firing from a quickdraw something that is covered in most training programs?
Col. Dash wrote: @Ouze- He was not checked for weapons as even concealed carriers are not allowed to carry weapons into a night club. He had a permit yes, but that permit did not permit him to go there since there is a state law against carrying in bars and night clubs
I am absolutely lost on the whole why would you defend against someone with a gun thing. Do you just plan on taking the shot like cow in line at the slaughterhouse or something? Sorry, Americans are brought up to stand up for themselves against threat, not just take it like some pansy muppet. There is no honor in dying without resistance.
Who are you addressing with the second line?
It does show a remarkable lack of historical awareness. Many times throughout history people dying without resistance have accomplished a lot more than those who died with guns in their hands who were struggling for the same goal. Would India have gained its independence were it not for ordinary people willing to walk towards people who would crack open their skulls yet not lift a hand to protect themselves or strike back? Possibly. Would it have been quicker and less bloody overall? I don't think so.
CptJake wrote: And again you are arguing against a point not made. I again never said it wasn't silly because it was in the constitution. I explained if you understand OUR constitution (not the one in StrawMan Land that protects the rights to own dildos) including the fact it has an amendment process and the reasons we have a Bill of Rights including this amendment you would understand why valuing guns is not silly. Because it isn't. Our country had (and has) plenty of very valid reasons to protect the right, and valuing the tool that enables that isn't going to be silly. Show me the StrawMan Land constitution and the history as to why they value dildos, and then maybe we can make a reasonable comparison.
If you want to make an argument that valuing guns isn't silly, then you make that argument. You actually list a bunch of benefits you from owning guns. But you didn't do that. Instead you posted "Stupid in your mind, but not in the eyes of folks who understand our constitution."
Seaward wrote: A house fire's unlikely, yet we still have fire extinguishers and rope ladders for our third floor.
The day that people start walking around with holsters carrying fire extinguishers is the day that concealed carry will start looking like a sensible piece of risk aversion.
I mean, feth, carry guns around if you want. Guns are fun. But just fething admit that's why you do it.
CptJake wrote: And again you are arguing against a point not made. I again never said it wasn't silly because it was in the constitution. I explained if you understand OUR constitution (not the one in StrawMan Land that protects the rights to own dildos) including the fact it has an amendment process and the reasons we have a Bill of Rights including this amendment you would understand why valuing guns is not silly. Because it isn't. Our country had (and has) plenty of very valid reasons to protect the right, and valuing the tool that enables that isn't going to be silly. Show me the StrawMan Land constitution and the history as to why they value dildos, and then maybe we can make a reasonable comparison.
If you want to make an argument that valuing guns isn't silly, then you make that argument. You actually list a bunch of benefits you from owning guns. But you didn't do that. Instead you posted "Stupid in your mind, but not in the eyes of folks who understand our constitution."
Seaward wrote: A house fire's unlikely, yet we still have fire extinguishers and rope ladders for our third floor.
The day that people start walking around with holsters carrying fire extinguishers is the day that concealed carry will start looking like a sensible piece of risk aversion.
I mean, feth, carry guns around if you want. Guns are fun. But just fething admit that's why you do it.
Okay, but to even things out in your hypothetical, in every public building there needs to be several guns behind glass with signs that say "In case of active shooter break glass".
cuda1179 wrote: Okay, but to even things out in your hypothetical, in every public building there needs to be several guns behind glass with signs that say "In case of active shooter break glass".
This analogue only makes sense if armed civilians regularly stopped active shooters the way fire extinguishers regularly contain small fires. In reality, though, this is something that has nearly never happened, statistically - I can only think of a few examples, and we have an awful lot of mass shootings.
The idea of a good guy with a CCW pulling his daily carry and stopping some active shooter rampage is really kind of a fantasy. I support concealed carry in general and in this specific venue, but the idea that you might stop an active shooter really doesn't enter into it.
When I walked around campus back in 2000-2004 I had a case with an "emergency slot". This was a case that had a mini version of anything I needed should something happen while away from my dorm. I had a mini sewing kit, bandaids, gauss, eye-dropper of alcohol, extra eye glasses, 5 $20 bills, a half-roll of quarters, and a memory stick. All of this could fit in a small pouch and I never really new it was there, until I needed it one day. Yes, I lugged around an extra pound of stuff for 4 years, but I'm glad I did for the two times I used it.
Would I have carried a gun if I had the chance? Maybe. Less likely to use it that anything else in the emergency kit, but if I ever did use it it would mean more than anything else in there.
cuda1179 wrote: Okay, but to even things out in your hypothetical, in every public building there needs to be several guns behind glass with signs that say "In case of active shooter break glass".
This analogue only makes sense if armed civilians regularly stopped active shooters the way fire extinguishers regularly contain small fires. In reality, though, this is something that has nearly never happened, statistically - I can only think of a few examples, and we have an awful lot of mass shootings.
The idea of a good guy with a CCW pulling his daily carry and stopping some active shooter rampage is really kind of a fantasy. I support concealed carry in general and in this specific venue, but the idea that you might stop an active shooter really doesn't enter into it.
I somewhat agree with you, however you are forgetting some things. In order for an active shooter to be stopped by a carrying citizen, there actually has to be someone with a gun there. Usually there isn't, and a lot of the time that is because it isn't allowed. A more actuate thing to figure out is how often (percentage wise) when an active shooter engages someone with a gun is the gun used successfully. Even if you have the numbers the data pool is way too small to draw any kind of conclusion. Even then, successfully using the gun doesn't mean killing the shooter. The purpose is to protect yourself, not save the day. Someone that makes a shooter back off without firing a shot just used it correctly. Personally, I'd rather have the option and not need it.
cuda1179 wrote: Okay, but to even things out in your hypothetical, in every public building there needs to be several guns behind glass with signs that say "In case of active shooter break glass".
To be supplemented by an Active Shooter Department, who stay in Active Shooter Stations, until someone reports an Active Shooter, then they slide down the pole in the station, and drive to the site of the Active Shooter in big red trucks with miniguns on them, ready to respond to the Active Shooter by hosing them down with bullets.
But seriously, can we just admit people walk around with guns because they think guns are cool? Also, baseball caps are about fashion not sun protection, and those jackets women wear over their evening dresses do absolutely nothing about the cold.
cuda1179 wrote: Okay, but to even things out in your hypothetical, in every public building there needs to be several guns behind glass with signs that say "In case of active shooter break glass".
To be supplemented by an Active Shooter Department, who stay in Active Shooter Stations, until someone reports an Active Shooter,.
I believe that's called the POLICE. We all ready have those.
Mitochondria wrote: ITT: a bunch of foreigners who have given up their rights trying to convince Americans to give up theirs.
I can't speak for any other dirty, stinking foreigner, but I'm not trying to get anyone to give up any gun rights. That's a decision you guys can make whatever way you want. My only issue is that you think about the issue sensibly. This means criticising the anti-gun side when they fixate on scary 'assault weapons' and mass shootings, and it means criticising the pro-gun side when they assign positive properties to guns that aren't there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: I believe that's called the POLICE. We all ready have those.
sebster wrote: The day that people start walking around with holsters carrying fire extinguishers is the day that concealed carry will start looking like a sensible piece of risk aversion.
I mean, feth, carry guns around if you want. Guns are fun. But just fething admit that's why you do it.
Ah, good, Schrodinger's Violence: the United States has a massive gun violence problem or not anywhere near enough gun violence to warrant actually carrying a gun for defense, depending on what state of his argument the gun control proponent has reached.
sebster wrote: The day that people start walking around with holsters carrying fire extinguishers is the day that concealed carry will start looking like a sensible piece of risk aversion.
I mean, feth, carry guns around if you want. Guns are fun. But just fething admit that's why you do it.
Ah, good, Schrodinger's Violence: the United States has a massive gun violence problem or not anywhere near enough gun violence to warrant actually carrying a gun for defense, depending on what state of his argument the gun control proponent has reached.
I know, right? I love how you can pick 10 other gun threads in here, and find non-stop arguments about how bad our gun violence is, and all of a sudden, now it's not that bad at all.
@Ouze- "This analogue only makes sense if armed civilians regularly stopped active shooters the way fire extinguishers regularly contain small fires. In reality, though, this is something that has nearly never happened, statistically - I can only think of a few examples, and we have an awful lot of mass shootings"(never figured this quote thing out)
Except almost every mass shooting takes place in "Gun Free Zones" where law abiding people are not allowed to carry concealed weapons. This new law at least gets rid of some of these shooting galleries. If we don't have any mass shootings in TX universities over the next few years, I think we can call it a success as a deterrent. It is proven that bad guys target gun free zones since no one has weapons to fight back with. The batman theater shooter even admitted so in his journal as to why he chose his target.
And yes that other line from before was for Slyth I think or whoever keeps arguing that you can always run from a bullet..
But seriously, can we just admit people walk around with guns because they think guns are cool? Also, baseball caps are about fashion not sun protection, and those jackets women wear over their evening dresses do absolutely nothing about the cold.
I'm going to be blunt here. I might not have agreed with a lot of your assertions in the past, but I always pegged you as a highly intelligent individual. The posts that you have made, even if I disagreed, have always been well-thought out and rational.
That being said, this statement you made above has to be the most ridiculous thing I have seen coming from you. Which shocks me, to be frank.
If you think that most law-abiding Americans who carry are doing so to be "fashionable" or "cool", then you are sorely, SORELY misinformed. And wherever you are getting this "fact" from, that you insist that we outright lie and "admit to", wouldn't know (or understand) the actual facts if they walked and slapped them in the face.
sebster wrote: The day that people start walking around with holsters carrying fire extinguishers is the day that concealed carry will start looking like a sensible piece of risk aversion.
I mean, feth, carry guns around if you want. Guns are fun. But just fething admit that's why you do it.
Ah, good, Schrodinger's Violence: the United States has a massive gun violence problem or not anywhere near enough gun violence to warrant actually carrying a gun for defense, depending on what state of his argument the gun control proponent has reached.
That is a dishonest argument. Actually it's the pro-gun people that are using Shrodinger's violence. I haven't seen anyone saying that there isn't enough violence to justify carrying a gun so you shouldn't be able to.
sebster wrote: The day that people start walking around with holsters carrying fire extinguishers is the day that concealed carry will start looking like a sensible piece of risk aversion.
I mean, feth, carry guns around if you want. Guns are fun. But just fething admit that's why you do it.
Ah, good, Schrodinger's Violence: the United States has a massive gun violence problem or not anywhere near enough gun violence to warrant actually carrying a gun for defense, depending on what state of his argument the gun control proponent has reached.
That is a dishonest argument. Actually it's the pro-gun people that are using Shrodinger's violence. I haven't seen anyone saying that there isn't enough violence to justify carrying a gun so you shouldn't be able to.
skyth wrote: And the chance of that being something you have to worry about is incredibly low...And the chance of having a gun helping you in the situation isn't all that high either.
So basically, people feel the need to carry a weapon because of fear of something that is really unlikely. Makes them look silly, much like Sheldon Cooper in his disaster preparation drills...
The day that people start walking around with holsters carrying fire extinguishers is the day that concealed carry will start looking like a sensible piece of risk aversion.
Given that most modern buildings already have these stashed everywhere, and that automatic sprinkler systems to suppress fire are included in almost every nonresidential building, as well as the fact that a fire isnt going to mug you in a parking lot, the bases are probably covered in that regard. I do carry an extinguisher in my car however.
sebster wrote: The day that people start walking around with holsters carrying fire extinguishers is the day that concealed carry will start looking like a sensible piece of risk aversion.
I mean, feth, carry guns around if you want. Guns are fun. But just fething admit that's why you do it.
Ah, good, Schrodinger's Violence: the United States has a massive gun violence problem or not anywhere near enough gun violence to warrant actually carrying a gun for defense, depending on what state of his argument the gun control proponent has reached.
That is a dishonest argument. Actually it's the pro-gun people that are using Shrodinger's violence. I haven't seen anyone saying that there isn't enough violence to justify carrying a gun so you shouldn't be able to.
skyth wrote: And the chance of that being something you have to worry about is incredibly low...And the chance of having a gun helping you in the situation isn't all that high either.
So basically, people feel the need to carry a weapon because of fear of something that is really unlikely. Makes them look silly, much like Sheldon Cooper in his disaster preparation drills...
And point out EXACTLY where I said you shouldn't be able to carry one. I'm waiting...
Safety equipment used when there is a reasonable chance of needing it isn't fear based. It is, however when the threat isn-t reasonable.
Needing a weapon in the normal course of your day is not a reasonable percaution, especially when evasion is the safer method in general.
Have you seen the crime stats in the US? It's not all unreasonable. I've had to draw my ccw before in a situation where "evasion" wasn't possible. Thankfully I didn't have to shoot.
So go get your CCW and cary if you want. I'm not going to stop you. However I will have a lower opinion of you. It proves to me that you are either unreasonably paranoid or a gung ho bully.
Safety equipment used when there is a reasonable chance of needing it isn't fear based. It is, however when the threat isn-t reasonable.
Needing a weapon in the normal course of your day is not a reasonable percaution, especially when evasion is the safer method in general.
Have you seen the crime stats in the US? It's not all unreasonable. I've had to draw my ccw before in a situation where "evasion" wasn't possible. Thankfully I didn't have to shoot.
Why do I get the feeling that you didn't actually need to draw it...
The day that people start walking around with holsters carrying fire extinguishers is the day that concealed carry will start looking like a sensible piece of risk aversion.
Given that most modern buildings already have these stashed everywhere, and that automatic sprinkler systems to suppress fire are included in almost every nonresidential building, as well as the fact that a fire isnt going to mug you in a parking lot, the bases are probably covered in that regard. I do carry an extinguisher in my car however.
I just drink a lot of coffee every hour. "Fire extinguisher" ...check!
Safety equipment used when there is a reasonable chance of needing it isn't fear based. It is, however when the threat isn-t reasonable.
Needing a weapon in the normal course of your day is not a reasonable percaution, especially when evasion is the safer method in general.
Have you seen the crime stats in the US? It's not all unreasonable. I've had to draw my ccw before in a situation where "evasion" wasn't possible. Thankfully I didn't have to shoot.
Why do I get the feeling that you didn't actually need to draw it...
Because you weren't in the situation, and therefore are able to draw conclusions based only on what you have read, which is that he drew a weapon because he felt he was not able to run. There are a lot of feelings people can take from something so vague, and usually those will correspond to their own stances.
Safety equipment used when there is a reasonable chance of needing it isn't fear based. It is, however when the threat isn-t reasonable.
Needing a weapon in the normal course of your day is not a reasonable percaution, especially when evasion is the safer method in general.
Have you seen the crime stats in the US? It's not all unreasonable. I've had to draw my ccw before in a situation where "evasion" wasn't possible. Thankfully I didn't have to shoot.
If you didn't need to shoot then how were you in a situation which presented you with enough reasonable belief that you were in imminent danger for you to draw?
This, I think, highlights a serious issue with how guns are used in the US, especially by the police. Guns are not a means of gaining compliance or de-escalation, they are a means of killing someone when all other alternatives are used up. Your gun is what you use when all other alternatives have failed, not your first resort in order to try and gain control over a situation.
Safety equipment used when there is a reasonable chance of needing it isn't fear based. It is, however when the threat isn-t reasonable.
Needing a weapon in the normal course of your day is not a reasonable percaution, especially when evasion is the safer method in general.
Have you seen the crime stats in the US? It's not all unreasonable. I've had to draw my ccw before in a situation where "evasion" wasn't possible. Thankfully I didn't have to shoot.
If you didn't need to shoot then how were you in a situation which presented you with enough reasonable belief that you were in imminent danger for you to draw?
This, I think, highlights a serious issue with how guns are used in the US, especially by the police. Guns are not a means of gaining compliance or de-escalation, they are a means of killing someone when all other alternatives are used up. Your gun is what you use when all other alternatives have failed, not your first resort in order to try and gain control over a situation.
In a vehicle, blocked in front and back by other cars, man with a hammer approaching my window threatening to kill me. Not going to wait until he's beating me with the hammer to draw.
This highlights a serious issue with peoples' opinions of situations they don't understand.
Safety equipment used when there is a reasonable chance of needing it isn't fear based. It is, however when the threat isn-t reasonable.
Needing a weapon in the normal course of your day is not a reasonable percaution, especially when evasion is the safer method in general.
Have you seen the crime stats in the US? It's not all unreasonable. I've had to draw my ccw before in a situation where "evasion" wasn't possible. Thankfully I didn't have to shoot.
If you didn't need to shoot then how were you in a situation which presented you with enough reasonable belief that you were in imminent danger for you to draw?
This, I think, highlights a serious issue with how guns are used in the US, especially by the police. Guns are not a means of gaining compliance or de-escalation, they are a means of killing someone when all other alternatives are used up. Your gun is what you use when all other alternatives have failed, not your first resort in order to try and gain control over a situation.
Because reasonable fear does not mean that factors can't change.
Example- Guys kick in house door. Homeowner greets invaders with drawn weapon. Invaders decide not such a good idea and flees. No shooting required.
Firearms certainly are a method to gain compliance and de-escalation. Whether they are appropriate in a given situation is always the question.
The day that people start walking around with holsters carrying fire extinguishers is the day that concealed carry will start looking like a sensible piece of risk aversion.
Given that most modern buildings already have these stashed everywhere, and that automatic sprinkler systems to suppress fire are included in almost every nonresidential building, as well as the fact that a fire isnt going to mug you in a parking lot, the bases are probably covered in that regard. I do carry an extinguisher in my car however.
I just drink a lot of coffee every hour. "Fire extinguisher" ...check!
I can't do coffee...it does terrible things to my guts.
A Town Called Malus wrote: This, I think, highlights a serious issue with how guns are used in the US, especially by the police. Guns are not a means of gaining compliance or de-escalation, they are a means of killing someone when all other alternatives are used up.
Of course they are not. They are a means of self defense when presented with lethal force
A Town Called Malus wrote: Your gun is what you use when all other alternatives have failed, not your first resort in order to try and gain control over a situation.
sebster wrote: The day that people start walking around with holsters carrying fire extinguishers is the day that concealed carry will start looking like a sensible piece of risk aversion.
I mean, feth, carry guns around if you want. Guns are fun. But just fething admit that's why you do it.
Ah, good, Schrodinger's Violence: the United States has a massive gun violence problem or not anywhere near enough gun violence to warrant actually carrying a gun for defense, depending on what state of his argument the gun control proponent has reached.
That is a dishonest argument. Actually it's the pro-gun people that are using Shrodinger's violence. I haven't seen anyone saying that there isn't enough violence to justify carrying a gun so you shouldn't be able to.
skyth wrote: And the chance of that being something you have to worry about is incredibly low...And the chance of having a gun helping you in the situation isn't all that high either.
So basically, people feel the need to carry a weapon because of fear of something that is really unlikely. Makes them look silly, much like Sheldon Cooper in his disaster preparation drills...
Seaward wrote: Ah, good, Schrodinger's Violence: the United States has a massive gun violence problem or not anywhere near enough gun violence to warrant actually carrying a gun for defense, depending on what state of his argument the gun control proponent has reached.
If you want to think entirely in hopeless generalities with no regard for numbers, then that line sure is a zinger. But actually look at the numbers and you'll see this is pretty simple. The US has about 10,000 murders per year, a per capita rate more than 3 times higher than other developed countries. From a population health POV is isn't hard to understand that if guns were somehow brought under control, there could be a saving of many thousands of lives a year. But at the same time, the US still only has around 3.5 murders murder per 100,000 per year. So while there is obvious scope to potentially save a few thousand lives a year, the actual threat to each individual is very small indeed.
As such, it is reasonable to say that anyone who keeps a gun on their person "just in case", but speeds to work every day is acting in a basically irrational way.
djones520 wrote: I know, right? I love how you can pick 10 other gun threads in here, and find non-stop arguments about how bad our gun violence is, and all of a sudden, now it's not that bad at all.
See my post above, and then spend some time thinking about the endless fething times we've discussed this before. Because I know I've had back and forth posts with you about the actual context of US gun violence - that it is much more of a problem than anywhere else in the developed world, but as a direct risk to the average citizen it is still extremely small.
But now all those conversations are just forgotten. It was just like throwing putty at a wall, because you've got your ideological safe zone, and you will not fething leave it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oldravenman3025 wrote: If you think that most law-abiding Americans who carry are doing so to be "fashionable" or "cool", then you are sorely, SORELY misinformed. And wherever you are getting this "fact" from, that you insist that we outright lie and "admit to", wouldn't know (or understand) the actual facts if they walked and slapped them in the face.
I didn't say Americans carry in order to be fashionable or cool. fething read the words actually written. I said guns are cool, and I think this is a statement everyone here can agree with. And I then said that people want to have them because they are cool. Not 'to be cool', but because guns themselves are inherently cool so they want them in their lives. They then invent reasons to wear the gun, but the primary drive is that they think the gun is cool.
It's a bit like all the women walking around in designer fitness wear. I'm sure there's a million bits of pseudo-science about why their space materials make those better clothes that these women can rattle off if challenged on it. But those reasons are really why these girls walking around the shops in lycra.
Consider this - being struck in the head, or being knocked and suffering a major head injury is way more common way of being seriously hurt or killed than suffering a deliberate, violent attack. And yet very few people walk around the streets or drives their car with a bike helment on. It turns out it really isn't about sensibly assessing real world threats and responding with appropriate measures...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Given that most modern buildings already have these stashed everywhere, and that automatic sprinkler systems to suppress fire are included in almost every nonresidential building, as well as the fact that a fire isnt going to mug you in a parking lot, the bases are probably covered in that regard. I do carry an extinguisher in my car however.
Do you think you are unusual in carrying a fire extinguisher in your car?
sebster wrote: If you want to think entirely in hopeless generalities with no regard for numbers, then that line sure is a zinger. But actually look at the numbers and you'll see this is pretty simple.
Which numbers? The numbers that you cherry pick to make your argument, or am I allowed to look at all the numbers? You know, like defensive gun uses per year?
The US has about 10,000 murders per year,
No.
As such, it is reasonable to say that anyone who keeps a gun on their person "just in case", but speeds to work every day is acting in a basically irrational way.
Well, sure. Just like anyone who learns CPR and how to rescue swim is being incredibly irrational, because drowning deaths are far more rare than gun deaths. And let's not even get started on parents who check their babies' sleeping position at night to avoid SIDS.
It was just like throwing putty at a wall, because you've got your ideological safe zone, and you will not fething leave it.
I appreciate irony and self-parody as much as the next guy, but come on.
Seaward wrote: Which numbers? The numbers that you cherry pick to make your argument, or am I allowed to look at all the numbers? You know, like defensive gun uses per year?
We'll use reliable numbers. This means that collected numbers on actual homicides can be used. It means we won't use numbers based on a 1992 phone poll with chronic methodological problems that have been outlined to you in previous threads.
Well, sure. Just like anyone who learns CPR and how to rescue swim is being incredibly irrational, because drowning deaths are far more rare than gun deaths. And let's not even get started on parents who check their babies' sleeping position at night to avoid SIDS.
Yes, a person who puts lots of effort in to a small risk thing, and less effort in to a big risk thing is being irrational. I mean, this is obvious. I think you've lost the track of your own argument there.
I appreciate irony and self-parody as much as the next guy, but come on.
My position can be criticised for many things, but it ideology isn't one of them. If you'd ever read one of my posts, and not just skimmed it for something to get all hot and bothered over, you'd have learned my position is that;
1) Guns are the primary cause of the US higher homicide and suicide rate compared to other developed countries, because duh.
2) That's doesn't mean guns should be banned. Alcohol kills probably eight times as many, and that's okay because we accept that people can and even should do harmful things in the cause of having a good time. Guns are awesome fun and that should be respected.
3) All I want is for people to debate this issue, and decide where the line on gun control should be drawn, with an actual understanding of the real issues, instead of the ideological pap and outright lies that all too often dominate this debate.
That is simply and obviously not an ideological argument. But you'll claim I have one anyway, because it's easier than reading and responding to what's actually written.
Seaward wrote: Which numbers? The numbers that you cherry pick to make your argument, or am I allowed to look at all the numbers? You know, like defensive gun uses per year?
We'll use reliable numbers. This means that collected numbers on actual homicides can be used. It means we won't use numbers based on a 1992 phone poll with chronic methodological problems that have been outlined to you in previous threads.
Well, sure. Just like anyone who learns CPR and how to rescue swim is being incredibly irrational, because drowning deaths are far more rare than gun deaths. And let's not even get started on parents who check their babies' sleeping position at night to avoid SIDS.
Yes, a person who puts lots of effort in to a small risk thing, and less effort in to a big risk thing is being irrational. I mean, this is obvious. I think you've lost the track of your own argument there.
I appreciate irony and self-parody as much as the next guy, but come on.
My position can be criticised for many things, but it ideology isn't one of them. If you'd ever read one of my posts, and not just skimmed it for something to get all hot and bothered over, you'd have learned my position is that; 1) Guns are the primary cause of the US higher homicide and suicide rate compared to other developed countries, because duh. 2) That's doesn't mean guns should be banned. Alcohol kills probably eight times as many, and that's okay because we accept that people can and even should do harmful things in the cause of having a good time. Guns are awesome fun and that should be respected. 3) All I want is for people to debate this issue, and decide where the line on gun control should be drawn, with an actual understanding of the real issues, instead of the ideological pap and outright lies that all too often dominate this debate.
That is simply and obviously not an ideological argument. But you'll claim I have one anyway, because it's easier than reading and responding to what's actually written.
Shows by sate weapons used in 2014. Guns are about 60% I think (read that but have not totaled the figures in the table). Of note, 'rifles' including those scary military grade assault weapons of mass destruction with high capacity magazines account for a very low number. You will also notice the murder rate fell in 2014 from 2013 ( https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/murder) even though no new restrictions on guns were implemented (in fact gun sales were up).
Guns are not a 'cause' of anything, guns are a tool. Tools don't cause homicide. If they did, the rates would be going up as the quantity of the tool went up. Rates have been going down...
sebster wrote: We'll use reliable numbers. This means that collected numbers on actual homicides can be used. It means we won't use numbers based on a 1992 phone poll with chronic methodological problems that have been outlined to you in previous threads.
Oh, dear. You genuinely believe that's the only data collection that's been done.
You know the CDC looked into this stuff after Sandy Hook, right?
Yes, a person who puts lots of effort in to a small risk thing, and less effort in to a big risk thing is being irrational. I mean, this is obvious. I think you've lost the track of your own argument there.
A lot of effort? How much effort do you think it takes?
This is the futility of arguing against people who take an ideological stance on this issue; they have no idea what they're talking about. If it's not hexadecy magnum clips in assault rifles, it's shoulder things that go up or intoning the complex, arcane chanting needed for the ritual of holstering a Glock.
My position can be criticised for many things, but it ideology isn't one of them.
We've been over many, many times how saying something simply doesn't make it true.
1) Guns are the primary cause of the US higher homicide and suicide rate compared to other developed countries, because duh.
Interesting you say that, in light of...
3) All I want is for people to debate this issue, and decide where the line on gun control should be drawn, with an actual understanding of the real issues, instead of the ideological pap and outright lies that all too often dominate this debate.
How's the homicide rate for whites in the US? How's that compare with "other developed countries"?
But you'll claim I have one anyway, because it's easier than reading and responding to what's actually written.
Primarily because the evidence points to it.
But whatever. We're about two posts away from you doing the usual pigeon playing chess thing with this argument.
sebster wrote: [ Guns are the primary cause of the US higher homicide and suicide rate compared to other developed countries, because duh.
.
I'd like to point out that Japan is a developed country and their suicide rate alone is significantly higher than the US suicide AND murder rate combined. That's even before you adjust for changes in definitions.
sebster wrote: [ Guns are the primary cause of the US higher homicide and suicide rate compared to other developed countries, because duh.
.
I'd like to point out that Japan is a developed country and their suicide rate alone is significantly higher than the US suicide AND murder rate combined. That's even before you adjust for changes in definitions.
To my understanding, Japan has the strictest gun laws on the planet and a suicide rate that, per capita, far outstrips the U.S.
Alcohol kills roughly three times more people per year than guns and if you rank it against gun related homicides, that number goes up to eight times more per year than guns.
Since the reason most of the anti gun posters here hate them is because of the death and injury they cause, I trust they neither support the alcohol industry by buying their product or having parties where alcohol is served.
You will also notice the murder rate fell in 2014 from 2013
The murder rate in the US has been on a 25 year long steady decline. It's a fraction of what it was in the early 90s
This is because, as I've said in countless other threads, the murder rate is driven by lots of other things besides simply having guns. This is why we only look at developed countries when making the comparison, because obviously there are all kinds of problems in developing countries that totally dwarf any impact gun saturation might have.
Guns are not a 'cause' of anything, guns are a tool.
It should be very intuitive and natural to anyone that if a tool is more commonly available, it will be used more.
This is, of course, the argument for defensive gun uses - by having more guns around then it is more likely that a gun is available when you need one. But the flipside of that is also true - when a person decides in the heat of the moment to commit an act of murder, then it is a bad thing when there is a gun on hand.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Oh, dear. You genuinely believe that's the only data collection that's been done.
You know the CDC looked into this stuff after Sandy Hook, right?
Yeah, and that limited scope and preliminary research piece was taken by the gun rights people, and then misquoted to buggery.
If you actually read the CDC study, you'll find it didn't do any research of its own on defensive gun use. It just said that other works have shown defensive gun use is roughly equal to offensive, criminal gun use... and then pointed out that all that other work was really unreliable and crappy. It then said it would be good to have some better studies done.
Something you'd know if you read the study. But you haven't. You've just heard a misquoted, deceptive summary, and bought in to it unquestioningly because it told you what you want to hear.
That's 10,000, alright.
Are actually trying to protest that it was more than the figure I gave? I mean, I've seen some nonsensical stuff on the internet before, but...
A lot of effort? How much effort do you think it takes?
Okay, not as pedantic as the bit above, but it is certainly a worthy follow up piece.
Look, if you can't do this and have to resort to trying to drag it down in to debates on single words, then just walk away.
This is the futility of arguing against people who take an ideological stance on this issue; they have no idea what they're talking about. If it's not hexadecy magnum clips in assault rifles, it's shoulder things that go up or intoning the complex, arcane chanting needed for the ritual of holstering a Glock.
Well it is certainly futile to argue with the fantasy nonsense that you've just made up, that I didn't actually say. Maybe don't do it then?
How's the homicide rate for whites in the US? How's that compare with "other developed countries"?
Are you claiming that other developed countries don't have minorities? Because that would certainly be a thing.
Anyhow, we've been through this 'it's all about the blacks and the gangs before'. It was nonsense then, and after some time away you've come back repeating the same stuff. I've got no interest in playing this stupid whack-a-mole game again.
But whatever. We're about two posts away from you doing the usual pigeon playing chess thing with this argument.
Heh, I had genuinely forgotten about your talent for re-writing history. Which, honestly, I can't even fault you for. I mean if I believed a lot of nonsense that kept falling apart when I argued it on the internet, I guess I'd probably prefer to just re-imagine that I won all the arguments and was totally awesome and all the chicks totally love me, because the alternative would be no fun at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: I'd like to point out that Japan is a developed country and their suicide rate alone is significantly higher than the US suicide AND murder rate combined.
And of course, Japan is in the middle of a 25 year economic decline. Look in the graph below, as unemployment grows following the 90s property crash, suicide grows right along with it. And as Japan has never actually recovered its economy, suicide hasn't come down.
Guns obviously aren't the explanation for everything everywhere. Individual countries will have all kinds of issues. But the high US suicide rate can't be explained by economics, because you've have good and bad economic conditions, and still killed yourselves at a greater rate than other developed countries.
Go read about triggers - read about the risks of having an item in the house that can prompt suicidal thoughts. This is why prescription medication, even non-lethal prescription medication, can increase the likelihood of taking some kind of attempt at your life. It's why it's a terrible idea to live next to a cliff, or near a train line, if you have suicidal thoughts.
That's even before you adjust for changes in definitions.
This is an old myth that's been dragged up countless times on dakka. For starters, it works on the absolute margins, it is plus/minus 5%. It does nothing to explain a rate that is 3 or 4 times greater. Second up, there are studies that use 'non-negligent manslaughter' as a uniform definition across countries. The results there show the same big difference between the US and other developed countries.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: To my understanding, Japan has the strictest gun laws on the planet and a suicide rate that, per capita, far outstrips the U.S.
Alcohol kills roughly three times more people per year than guns and if you rank it against gun related homicides, that number goes up to eight times more per year than guns.
Since the reason most of the anti gun posters here hate them is because of the death and injury they cause, I trust they neither support the alcohol industry by buying their product or having parties where alcohol is served.
Or you could for the love of all that is fething holy please just fething read what people have fething said.
" That's doesn't mean guns should be banned. Alcohol kills probably eight times as many, and that's okay because we accept that people can and even should do harmful things in the cause of having a good time. Guns are awesome fun and that should be respected."
sebster wrote: [ Guns are the primary cause of the US higher homicide and suicide rate compared to other developed countries, because duh.
.
I'd like to point out that Japan is a developed country and their suicide rate alone is significantly higher than the US suicide AND murder rate combined. That's even before you adjust for changes in definitions.
To my understanding, Japan has the strictest gun laws on the planet and a suicide rate that, per capita, far outstrips the U.S.
Alcohol kills roughly three times more people per year than guns and if you rank it against gun related homicides, that number goes up to eight times more per year than guns.
Since the reason most of the anti gun posters here hate them is because of the death and injury they cause, I trust they neither support the alcohol industry by buying their product or having parties where alcohol is served.
False equivalency and a joke argument.
The reason people dislike them is becaus they are a tool for killing. Yes they can ane are used for self defence, by threatening to kill someone or severly main them. Alchohol is not used for violence, Knives commonly sold are not sold as a way to kill you. Drugs ar the same. No one is going into a theater splashing alchohol on someone to kill them, no one is going into work with a handle of vodka to kill gary the intern.
Guns Kill and they are a tool sold for the express purpose of killing.
hotsauceman1 wrote: False equivalency and a joke argument.
The reason people dislike them is becaus they are a tool for killing. Yes they can ane are used for self defence, by threatening to kill someone or severly main them. Alchohol is not used for violence, Knives commonly sold are not sold as a way to kill you. Drugs ar the same. No one is going into a theater splashing alchohol on someone to kill them, no one is going into work with a handle of vodka to kill gary the intern.
Guns Kill and they are a tool sold for the express purpose of killing.
So alcohol by itself is "not used for violence", yet more people die from it than from firearms which are "a tool for killing". Is that correct?
Something you'd know if you read the study. But you haven't. You've just heard a misquoted, deceptive summary, and bought in to it unquestioningly because it told you what you want to hear.
It's pretty clear that I'm not the one who hasn't actually read the study here. One of the reasons it got very little publicity in the wake of Sandy Hook is because it didn't end up showing what your side of the debate was convinced it would - namely, that guns are rarely used defensively. You're correct that the CDC looked into all available studies. And their conclusion was that defensive gun use, based on all available evidence, is not nearly as negligible as the ideologues like to pretend it is.
What you're engaged in right now is essentially saying, "Well, based on all available evidence, my point is wrong, so I'm just going to declare the evidence to be bunk, and claim the CDC said the same thing because I sure hope no one else has read it, either."
Are actually trying to protest that it was more than the figure I gave? I mean, I've seen some nonsensical stuff on the internet before, but...
"Here's the number I'm claiming. How dare you point out it's incorrect!"
Okay, not as pedantic as the bit above, but it is certainly a worthy follow up piece.
Look, if you can't do this and have to resort to trying to drag it down in to debates on single words, then just walk away.
If you're going to claim pedantry every time you get called out for making an argument you can't defend, then I'd advise you to do the same. It's a two-way range here, dude, despite the best efforts of our Australian mods.
Well it is certainly futile to argue with the fantasy nonsense that you've just made up, that I didn't actually say. Maybe don't do it then?
No, you definitely said that concealed carrying requires a lot of effort.
Are you claiming that other developed countries don't have minorities? Because that would certainly be a thing.
Anyhow, we've been through this 'it's all about the blacks and the gangs before'. It was nonsense then, and after some time away you've come back repeating the same stuff. I've got no interest in playing this stupid whack-a-mole game again.
Probably because there's no easy way to simply blame 12.5% of the population committing 55% of the homicides on guns.
Heh, I had genuinely forgotten about your talent for re-writing history.
s needed killing.
