Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Illegal by state or fed.... also XD on the tickets.

Nearby is Frostburg and that place is a near definition of party college. Big thing out there that you shouldn't go out to parties in the woods. Bad stuff happens out there.

Plus that town gets money from the college but there isn't really many actual people that live in the town left. Place is nothing but beer bottles everywhere.

Per a poster who no loner posts that I can tell, campus police are there to keep the students from interacting with real police. I think there is a lot of merit to his statement.

I know at the Cali and Houston universities I attended, they were there to keep the VERY nefarious local elements off the campus from raping and murdering the students.

The police in Berkely were highly respected by the vast majority of students when I went there. They were patient, understanding and engaged with the community, and it was pretty clear they were helping make the campus safer. The Oakland police, on the other hand...

Then you have Berkeley now, shudders. Pure anarchy.

Obviously I know universities are big places with lots of kids, but my point was "campus police" are almost exclusively an american phenomenon. The rest of the world tends to get by with unarmed security.

I wonder if it's partly to do with alcohol. In the rest of the world university age kids are typically drinking age except maybe a few first year kids.

i never had any problems with my interactions with the campus police at the university I worked at in the US, they seemed like a decent bunch of people. On the flip side I've literally never interacted with police at the university I work at in Australia because campus police aren't a thing here in spite of the university here being much much larger than the one I worked at in the US.

Maybe because here we all hate each other. Too many bits in the soup.

I lived in Carbondale IL for a long time. It is a pretty infamous college party campus. The movie Animal House is based on the town. While I was there, my roommate got pulled over while trying to get some tacos. I had to go pick him up. I drove around looking for their "jail" for thirty minutes until one of them started tailing me then pulled me over. Got the only warning I have ever gotten in my life, but he did tell me where the station was. It was one half of a student housing building.

I hated those guys, but they really need them there. While I was living there, I think about 6 students were murdered at least, and I cannot tell you how much vandalism and straight up fethery happened. This is also the town that banned Halloween for many years because the students like to flip cars and torch them. College is very stressful over here. It's not just the classes, a lot of it is the impending debt. Some students snap.

Heh. I went to Edwardsville. We road tripped down there for parties.

 daedalus wrote:
Heh. I went to Edwardsville. We road tripped down there for parties.

I lived in Bethalto and Collinsville for a while as well.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The university I work at in Australia is 3 times larger than the one work at in the US and the Australian one doesn't have armed cops. We have several university campuses over here with 20k+ students. Campus police just aren't a thing though.

We have security of course, they're unarmed and just wander around to make sure stuff doesn't get vandalised, make sure buildings are locked at night, make sure there's not people in buildings that they shouldn't be in, escort people to their cars late at night and so on.

No armed coppers though.

Australia has 3 million guns. The United States has 300 million. When every cop has to assume there is a strong chance the person they are about to interact with is armed, it changes policing.

 Ouze wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The university I work at in Australia is 3 times larger than the one work at in the US and the Australian one doesn't have armed cops. We have several university campuses over here with 20k+ students. Campus police just aren't a thing though.

We have security of course, they're unarmed and just wander around to make sure stuff doesn't get vandalised, make sure buildings are locked at night, make sure there's not people in buildings that they shouldn't be in, escort people to their cars late at night and so on.

No armed coppers though.

Australia has 3 million guns. The United States has 300 million. When every cop has to assume there is a strong chance the person they are about to interact with is armed, it changes policing.

THe odds on facing a armed threat in US are many times higher. this requires law enforcement to armed in response.

 Ouze wrote:
Australia has 3 million guns. The United States has 300 million.

You're using a purposely inflated number here. Gun ownership in Australia is is roughly 1 gun per 4 people, in the US it's a touch over 1 gun per person (but obviously not everyone owns a gun and others own multiple). Yeah the US has more guns but it's no where near 100 times more like your number suggests, more like 4 times more.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The university I work at in Australia is 3 times larger than the one work at in the US and the Australian one doesn't have armed cops. We have several university campuses over here with 20k+ students. Campus police just aren't a thing though.

We have security of course, they're unarmed and just wander around to make sure stuff doesn't get vandalised, make sure buildings are locked at night, make sure there's not people in buildings that they shouldn't be in, escort people to their cars late at night and so on.

No armed coppers though.

Australia has 3 million guns. The United States has 300 million. When every cop has to assume there is a strong chance the person they are about to interact with is armed, it changes policing.

THe odds on facing a armed threat in US are many times higher. this requires law enforcement to armed in response.

Though I do wonder if at the end of the day does it actually make students any much safer.

Anywhere that's not Australia is automatically safer. Whole continent is trying to kill you.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Australia has 3 million guns. The United States has 300 million.

You're using a purposely inflated number here. Gun ownership in Australia is is roughly 1 gun per 4 people, in the US it's a touch over 1 gun per person (but obviously not everyone owns a gun and others own multiple). Yeah the US has more guns but it's no where near 100 times more like your number suggests, more like 4 times more.

If Australia has a population of 25 million people and has 1 gun per 4 people that's 6.25 million guns. If the US has 325 million inhabitants and has one gun per inhabitant that's 325 million guns. 325 isn't 100 times 6.25 (it's 52 times), but it's closer to 100 times than your 4 times.

The big factor for cops being concerned about people being armed isn't primarily the number of guns around, but the number of pistols and other easily concealed weapons around.

Scandinavian countries for example have loads of hunting rifles among the population (especially in the northern parts) and I believe more or less every Swiss male keep an assault-rifle in their homes after their military service?
But these kind of guns are bulky and easily spotted, so a police officer will easily be able to spot if a knife wielding look has one of those on them or not.

Gun crime is low in these countries compared to the USA, and a lot of the gun crime that does occur is committed with illegally obtained pistols.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Australia has 3 million guns. The United States has 300 million.

You're using a purposely inflated number here. Gun ownership in Australia is is roughly 1 gun per 4 people, in the US it's a touch over 1 gun per person (but obviously not everyone owns a gun and others own multiple). Yeah the US has more guns but it's no where near 100 times more like your number suggests, more like 4 times more.

If Australia has a population of 25 million people and has 1 gun per 4 people that's 6.25 million guns. If the US has 325 million inhabitants and has one gun per inhabitant that's 325 million guns. 325 isn't 100 times 6.25 (it's 52 times), but it's closer to 100 times than your 4 times.

My research seems to show that Australia has about 3 million civilian guns. If that's accurate, the US reliably sells more pistols alone than that yearly. You can't massage that data.

The US is awash in guns, and so the police have to assume that guns are likely present and police accordingly. I'm really not sure why this is a controversial idea.

 Zywus wrote:
The big factor for cops being concerned about people being armed isn't primarily the number of guns around, but the number of pistols and other easily concealed weapons around.

Scandinavian countries for example have loads of hunting rifles among the population (especially in the northern parts) and I believe more or less every Swiss male keep an assault-rifle in their homes after their military service?
But these kind of guns are bulky and easily spotted, so a police officer will easily be able to spot if a knife wielding look has one of those on them or not.

Gun crime is low in these countries compared to the USA, and a lot of the gun crime that does occur is committed with illegally obtained pistols.

This is a point. A dude I know is a hunter that tracks down game that has been hit in road accidents for the police. He routinely gets called out to put down injured wildlife and thus travels around with rifles a lot. As far as I know the police hasn't ever granted him permission to use his pistols though; they really, REALLY don't want people going around with easily-concealed guns.

 Zywus wrote:
The big factor for cops being concerned about people being armed isn't primarily the number of guns around, but the number of pistols and other easily concealed weapons around.

Scandinavian countries for example have loads of hunting rifles among the population (especially in the northern parts) and I believe more or less every Swiss male keep an assault-rifle in their homes after their military service?
But these kind of guns are bulky and easily spotted, so a police officer will easily be able to spot if a knife wielding look has one of those on them or not.

Gun crime is low in these countries compared to the USA, and a lot of the gun crime that does occur is committed with illegally obtained pistols.

That's the same with the US. Most firearm crimes involve illegally acquired weapons. Legally owned weapons are rarely involved in crimes.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
The big factor for cops being concerned about people being armed isn't primarily the number of guns around, but the number of pistols and other easily concealed weapons around.

Scandinavian countries for example have loads of hunting rifles among the population (especially in the northern parts) and I believe more or less every Swiss male keep an assault-rifle in their homes after their military service?
But these kind of guns are bulky and easily spotted, so a police officer will easily be able to spot if a knife wielding look has one of those on them or not.

Gun crime is low in these countries compared to the USA, and a lot of the gun crime that does occur is committed with illegally obtained pistols.

That's the same with the US. Most firearm crimes involve illegally acquired weapons. Legally owned weapons are rarely involved in crimes.

That's a valid point.

I guess a difference is that there barely exist any pistols in scandinavia among the populace outside of illegally imported ones, since it's nearly impossible to get legal permission to even own pistols. I presume the situation is similar in the rest of Europe.

In the US there's a whole lot of legally acquired pistols among the population, which makes it a lot more plausible that a loon on a campus is armed with a pistol, since he doesn't need any connection to illegal arms dealers to get hold of one.

 Zywus wrote:

That's a valid point.

I guess a difference is that there barely exist any pistols in scandinavia among the populace outside of illegally imported ones, since it's nearly impossible to get legal permission to even own pistols. I presume the situation is similar in the rest of Europe.

In the US there's a whole lot of legally acquired pistols among the population, which makes it a lot more plausible that a loon on a campus is armed with a pistol, since he doesn't need any connection to illegal arms dealers to get hold of one.

Not quite. Less than 1% of legally owned firearms in the US are ever used in any sort of crime. Legal gun owners, and concealed carry permit holders in particular, are statistically one of the safest groups of people to be around. You are several times more likely to be murdered by a cop. A vast majority of gun violence in this country is tied to illegally owned firearms in places where guns are tightly restricted, such as Chicago. Study after study has shown that while guns can make the resuls more lethal, their existence has no discernable impact on violent crime rates (and in fact violent crime happens with much more frequency in many other Western nations that have restrictive gun laws). Issues like poverty and income inequality are much, much better predictors of violent crime.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

That's a valid point.

I guess a difference is that there barely exist any pistols in scandinavia among the populace outside of illegally imported ones, since it's nearly impossible to get legal permission to even own pistols. I presume the situation is similar in the rest of Europe.

In the US there's a whole lot of legally acquired pistols among the population, which makes it a lot more plausible that a loon on a campus is armed with a pistol, since he doesn't need any connection to illegal arms dealers to get hold of one.

Not quite. Less than 1% of legally owned firearms in the US are ever used in any sort of crime. Legal gun owners, and concealed carry permit holders in particular, are statistically one of the safest groups of people to be around. You are several times more likely to be murdered by a cop. A vast majority of gun violence in this country is tied to illegally owned firearms in places where guns are tightly restricted, such as Chicago. Study after study has shown that while guns can make the resuls more lethal, their existence has no discernable impact on violent crime rates (and in fact violent crime happens with much more frequency in many other Western nations that have restrictive gun laws). Issues like poverty and income inequality are much, much better predictors of violent crime.

This all day long. I still don't know why people ignore societal reasons for the high crime rates and the fact that most major shootings happen in areas with the strictist gun laws. Its almost as if guns are really not the problem people make them out to be. If you got a wish from a Genie and wished all guns in the USA away, being run over and stabbed in the eye by pencils would be all over the news. Its gonna happen. Research on homemade explosives would go up, and these things would still happen.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

That's a valid point.

I guess a difference is that there barely exist any pistols in scandinavia among the populace outside of illegally imported ones, since it's nearly impossible to get legal permission to even own pistols. I presume the situation is similar in the rest of Europe.

In the US there's a whole lot of legally acquired pistols among the population, which makes it a lot more plausible that a loon on a campus is armed with a pistol, since he doesn't need any connection to illegal arms dealers to get hold of one.

Not quite. Less than 1% of legally owned firearms in the US are ever used in any sort of crime. Legal gun owners, and concealed carry permit holders in particular, are statistically one of the safest groups of people to be around. You are several times more likely to be murdered by a cop. A vast majority of gun violence in this country is tied to illegally owned firearms in places where guns are tightly restricted, such as Chicago. Study after study has shown that while guns can make the resuls more lethal, their existence has no discernable impact on violent crime rates (and in fact violent crime happens with much more frequency in many other Western nations that have restrictive gun laws). Issues like poverty and income inequality are much, much better predictors of violent crime.

Fair enough.

My original point was merely that the number of guns spread through the population doesn't directly correlate to the amount of gun-related crime. It's especially true for rifles, but as you point out, the number of handguns isn't particularly relevant either, without additional qualifiers.

 redleger wrote:
This all day long. I still don't know why people ignore societal reasons for the high crime rates and the fact that most major shootings happen in areas with the strictist gun laws. Its almost as if guns are really not the problem people make them out to be. If you got a wish from a Genie and wished all guns in the USA away, being run over and stabbed in the eye by pencils would be all over the news. Its gonna happen. Research on homemade explosives would go up, and these things would still happen.

The difference between strict gun laws and loose gun laws in the US isn't that big compared to actually strict gun laws in other developed countries and if you compare those numbers then the US also has many more gun deaths. In Australia they reduced the number of gun deaths by restricting access to guns. It can work if you implement it. So maybe the "too many guns" bit is also important.

Mario wrote:

 redleger wrote:
This all day long. I still don't know why people ignore societal reasons for the high crime rates and the fact that most major shootings happen in areas with the strictest gun laws. Its almost as if guns are really not the problem people make them out to be. If you got a wish from a Genie and wished all guns in the USA away, being run over and stabbed in the eye by pencils would be all over the news. Its gonna happen. Research on homemade explosives would go up, and these things would still happen.

The difference between strict gun laws and loose gun laws in the US isn't that big compared to actually strict gun laws in other developed countries and if you compare those numbers then the US also has many more gun deaths. In Australia they reduced the number of gun deaths by restricting access to guns. It can work if you implement it. So maybe the "too many guns" bit is also important.

that has absolutely no contextual relation to what I was talking about. You can not hand waive away the founding of the US and gun cultural. So comparing us to other countries is meaningless. So understanding where, and why gun violence happens as it correlates to legal and illegal possession of a weapon in committing a crime is what the take away was.

We should however steer back on topic though.

Nvm, off topic

 Luciferian wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

That's a valid point.

I guess a difference is that there barely exist any pistols in scandinavia among the populace outside of illegally imported ones, since it's nearly impossible to get legal permission to even own pistols. I presume the situation is similar in the rest of Europe.

In the US there's a whole lot of legally acquired pistols among the population, which makes it a lot more plausible that a loon on a campus is armed with a pistol, since he doesn't need any connection to illegal arms dealers to get hold of one.

Not quite. Less than 1% of legally owned firearms in the US are ever used in any sort of crime. Legal gun owners, and concealed carry permit holders in particular, are statistically one of the safest groups of people to be around. You are several times more likely to be murdered by a cop. A vast majority of gun violence in this country is tied to illegally owned firearms in places where guns are tightly restricted, such as Chicago. Study after study has shown that while guns can make the resuls more lethal, their existence has no discernable impact on violent crime rates (and in fact violent crime happens with much more frequency in many other Western nations that have restrictive gun laws). Issues like poverty and income inequality are much, much better predictors of violent crime.

Illegally owned firearms potentially purchased by someone else, legally, to make a profit or sold privately to someone who shouldn't own one.

One thing that I feel gets glossed over is that some things that should be considered as parts of these studies(such as suicides and domestic violence) are not, allowing people to cite them in situations like this.
Another thing is that people tend to forget that many people on the "legal gun owners side" own multiple guns, making these numbers a bit fallacious to begin with.

If you average out a gun owner owning 3-4 guns legally while illegal gun owners own 1 gun illegally, it makes these numbers wildly skewed.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Illegally owned firearms potentially purchased by someone else, legally, to make a profit or sold privately to someone who shouldn't own one.

One thing that I feel gets glossed over is that some things that should be considered as parts of these studies(such as suicides and domestic violence) are not, allowing people to cite them in situations like this.
Another thing is that people tend to forget that many people on the "legal gun owners side" own multiple guns, making these numbers a bit fallacious to begin with.

If you average out a gun owner owning 3-4 guns legally while illegal gun owners own 1 gun illegally, it makes these numbers wildly skewed.

Why would you want to include suicides in violent crime statistics? Especially in the special case of gun deaths, but nothing else? Rest assured that domestic violence is counted. Also, a straw purchase made on behalf of someone with no right to own a gun is not an example of legal gun ownership.

Any way you slice it, if you look at it from a purely statistical perspective, legal gun ownership does not increase violent crime rates. I could argue this even based solely on the studies which are least generous toward gun ownership. What you're talking about amounts to the difference between 0.003% and 0.012%. Although, as I said before, the availability of guns can make violent crime more lethal, even if it has no effect (or a negative effect) on the rate at which it happens.

Anyway, this is kind of loosely connected to the topic. There are a lot of reasons our police are so militarized compared to those of other nations. One of those reasons is the availability of guns, but I think a bigger reason is the style of "law and order" policing we've adopted. Especially since the beginning of the war on drugs around the time of the LBJ administration. Much like in war, no other country can match our expenditures in these areas, and it's created a vicious cycle of poverty, violence and escalation that is very much a problem to this day.

In any case, there are only so many things one can do in this particular situation. A man with a knife can very probably injure or kill anyone within about 7 yards of him in an instant. That includes an armed police officer. By the time someone like that picks up a knife or a gun, society has already failed them. We need more intervening factors BEFORE violence becomes a probable outcome, not when it already has.

Mario wrote:

 redleger wrote:
This all day long. I still don't know why people ignore societal reasons for the high crime rates and the fact that most major shootings happen in areas with the strictist gun laws. Its almost as if guns are really not the problem people make them out to be. If you got a wish from a Genie and wished all guns in the USA away, being run over and stabbed in the eye by pencils would be all over the news. Its gonna happen. Research on homemade explosives would go up, and these things would still happen.

The difference between strict gun laws and loose gun laws in the US isn't that big compared to actually strict gun laws in other developed countries and if you compare those numbers then the US also has many more gun deaths. In Australia they reduced the number of gun deaths by restricting access to guns. It can work if you implement it. So maybe the "too many guns" bit is also important.

We could, but we can't, and we won't.

Yes! A new Gun Thread! That is exactly what my Bingo Card needed!

You've got a bingo card? I've just been carving things into my skin.