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.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:


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.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 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.

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:


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.

Why I asked.

Thanks.

I personally carry without a round chambered. It's personal preference, not a technical reason.

Anyway, I'd support concealed carry on campus, and I'd support carrying sex toys openly too.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 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?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 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?

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?

No, 9,000 of 9,000 were denied it.

 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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 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?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 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?

No, 9,000 of 9,000 were denied it.

As well as anyone visiting the campus

 Hordini wrote:

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.

 Sarouan wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

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.

 Sarouan wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

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.

I am agreeing with ouze....

 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.



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.

Litcheur wrote:

 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.

Never mind

Litcheur wrote:

 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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 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...

Litcheur wrote:

 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?

Litcheur wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Litcheur wrote:

 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?