• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas poised to pass bill allowing guns on campus

Ikari said:
Yes, but you need to demonstrate that public interest. Public interest in and of itself does not override individual rights. There has to be a quantifiable risk to the public at large. Now some of that isn't even true. Allowing guns in society in general means that there will be a certain amount of gun crime. Certainly the aggregated use of guns in this country has led to a non-zero amount of gun crime and thus there is an overall risk to the American populace by allowing guns to be legal. Yet we do not use that public interest to then strip all guns away even though if you could remove enough guns you would start to affect the overall probabilities of gun crime. So there is a limit to what we can do, even in "public interest".
Click to expand...
You've taken leaps and bounds to exaggerate the public interest to pose a threat to removing all guns. You can't go back and rewrite the Second Amendment. Sufficeth to say, as my stated opinion, that I believe that allowing the unfettered possession of weapons in schools because of the Second Amendment right is irresponsible. And that I perceive that irresponsibility based upon an individual's right to keep and bear arms to be a detriment to the overall public interest. I say that not as a "weak sister" Second Amendment supporter, but as a concession to reality with the specific points I made in my earlier posts. I have to demonstrate nothing. I'm not, in this opinion, arguing my case before the Court of Nine and, in this opinion, not even trying to convince anyone to join my view. I'm giving this opinion as my alternate view that wasn't really stated as I've framed it. If your position is that the public interest never enters into the making of "public policy" you couldn't be more wrong. The minutia of legal opinion and detail is for lawyers and jurists to wrangle over.



However, as related to this debate, there is concern that what is being stripped away is being done so only by thoughts of assumption and supposition, not actual risks. What are the probabilities that any one of us can die on any given day? How is that probability affected by allowing or banning guns on campus? There has to be an effect there if you wish to infringe upon the rights of the individual. I've already stated that on my campus (in general in CO), concealed carry is allowed. There are bars, and young adults, and guns; yet there has been no shootings or anything of the like here. So obviously, just allowing adults to carry concealed, even on University property, does very little to our actual risk factors. If that is the case, then there is no "public interest", there is no legitimate argument by which you can authorize government force against the rights and liberties of the individual.
Click to expand...
Fine. One perfect example why I framed this as my "opinion". If and when I debate an opinion and validate it with source reference you'll know.This argument is not fiot for debate at this satge in my opinion. I do not beieve there are enough reasonably accurate and definable "experience" to formulate a valid right or wrong on. I recognized that up front. Your experience at your particular school may not be typical at all. Is it an inner, big city school? Is it a public university? Is it suburban? Is it rural? Is partying and binge-drinking prevalent? Is drug usage a common occurence? There are so many differing considerations that go to the type of youth at a particular school and your OPINION is limited, very much so, by your experience. I'm going to be 74 and I know what I read about and see on TV and I know one Hell of a lot of crap goes on in American schools as commonplace that was rare twenty or thirty years ago.



We've already decided to be free, that in and of itself carries with it the greatest amount of risk. Small perturbations above and below that mark are not going to manifest themselves in significant increases/decreases to our overall risk and probabilities of death.
Click to expand...
WHAT!:rolleyes:
An absolutely irresponsibly idyllic and myopic perception unfounded in today's reality. Don't be too pertinacious about those pertubations...seriously. One day you might find yourself at high risk based upon bad judgement and assumptions. That last sentence of this comment makes you sound like a statistician who has decided that she has calculated the risk level in walking across the street just one time blindfolded and with earmuffs on to be 'acceptable'..., so you'll give it a try. Lots of luck kiddo. I'll just watch...thanks!
 
Boo Radley said:
Never said they did anything on there own. People make the mistake. But you can't make a mistake with something you don't have. It really is simple to follow. I can't wreck a car I'm not driving or in either.
Click to expand...
Really now. How very enlightening. What do you say about the situation where you run into another car and wreck it? Do you say..."OOPS! I just think I made a mistake with something I didn't have and ruined something somebody else had.":shocked2::rolleyes:
 
doctorhugo said:
You've taken leaps and bounds to exaggerate the public interest to pose a threat to removing all guns. You can't go back and rewrite the Second Amendment. Sufficeth to say, as my stated opinion, that I believe that allowing the unfettered possession of weapons in schools because of the Second Amendment right is irresponsible.
Click to expand...


Who was ever talking about "unfettered possession of weapons in schools"?

We're talking about adults who have a clean criminal history carrying a pistol, discretely. It sounds like are trying to deliberately misrepresent us as if we want to mount machine guns on monster trucks and crash them through the classroom wall.
 
Last edited:
doctorhugo said:
Really now. How very enlightening. What do you say about the situation where you run into another car and wreck it? Do you say..."OOPS! I just think I made a mistake with something I didn't have and ruined something somebody else had.":shocked2::rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You are supporting what I'm saying. Am I misreading you?
 
Boo Radley said:
No, that's not true. And while it does raise the risk for you, it likely doesn't effect the numbers significantly enough to register. But, you driving a car may not effect driving satisitics, but it is a risk for you. Something could go wrong. Same with carrying a gun. It is a risk. And it is an unecessary one.
Click to expand...

Cars are a risk, yes. In fact, the leading cause of death in my age bracket. Are you saying I shouldn't drive because of the "added" risk? The risk already exists, as does the risk of being shot because guns are around. If allowing students to carry weapons increased that risk (it doesn't), then it could be quantified in some way. You could tell me my increased probabilities of death. If allowing guns on campus does not affect that at all (and it doesn't), then there is no reason to restrict it. You haven't actually affected the system in any negative way (and even that has limits as discussed before). You keep saying risk risk risk; but if there is no change to the dynamics of the actual system then it is not a risk. To say it's a risk you have to show some statistically meaningful increases in my overall probability of life or death on any given day.

People keep freaking out about this, but I have seen no negative side effects from students being allowed to carry weapons on my campus. Given that, I have no real reason to restrict the right. The right persists less you can demonstrate some meaningful negative consequence. And even then, under many circumstances the right still persists over the risks.
 
Ikari said:
Cars are a risk, yes. In fact, the leading cause of death in my age bracket. Are you saying I shouldn't drive because of the "added" risk? The risk already exists, as does the risk of being shot because guns are around. If allowing students to carry weapons increased that risk (it doesn't), then it could be quantified in some way. You could tell me my increased probabilities of death. If allowing guns on campus does not affect that at all (and it doesn't), then there is no reason to restrict it. You haven't actually affected the system in any negative way (and even that has limits as discussed before). You keep saying risk risk risk; but if there is no change to the dynamics of the actual system then it is not a risk. To say it's a risk you have to show some statistically meaningful increases in my overall probability of life or death on any given day.

People keep freaking out about this, but I have seen no negative side effects from students being allowed to carry weapons on my campus. Given that, I have no real reason to restrict the right. The right persists less you can demonstrate some meaningful negative consequence. And even then, under many circumstances the right still persists over the risks.
Click to expand...

No. I am however sying cars are a needed risk, much like weapons were when this country was first formed. Taking a risk due to need is one thing. Taking it without need is another.

And no one is freaking out, but are instead trying to articulate how needless this is, and how there is no place for a weapon on campus.

Understand, if guns become prevelent on cmapus, you may well see those studies and statisitics you ask for. And that would be a shame, as it would mean we paid a cost for this. I believe we don't have to hit the wall with our head to know that hitting our head agianst the wall will hurt. We can make reasonable judgements before we do something needlessly that is risky.
 
Jerry said:
Who was ever talking about "unfettered possession of weapons in schools"?

We're talking about adults who have a clean criminal history carrying a pistol, discretely. It sounds like are trying to deliberately misrepresent us as if we want to mount machine guns on monster trucks and crash them through the classroom wall.
Click to expand...
Don't misread me Jerry. Ikari and some others got into the discussion involving gun possession in schools, and involving BOTH students and teachers...REMEMBER?. I commented, quite specifically, and with limitation to that reference I stated MY OPINION in that very limited area. Just because you may believe there are absolutely no exceptions to places where the right to keep and bear arms can be restricted doesn't mean my opinion is wrong. There are such limitations existing NOW in law. My entire comment, as you may see by reading it, centers about a discussion of what is or isn't "in the public interest". I can't be any clearer than that.

So what do you do? You jump on your high horse named Hyperbole tethered to the Very Conservative walk-down cooler and lay this crap on me:
"It sounds like are trying to deliberately misrepresent us as if we want to mount machine guns on monster trucks and crash them through the classroom wall."
Click to expand...
You do yourself and the debate no good when you exaggerate so. You have posted long and enough to understand that a discussion titled:
Texas poised to pass bill allowing guns on campus
Click to expand...
is not so limiting as to make my comments off-topic. Please don't repeat this ridiculous pattern with me, I wouldn't do it with you. As I've said before here...I am never obtuse. I state what I believe. Learn to deal with freedom of speech Jerry. My opinion is as valid as yours and both are on-topic conjecture.
 
Boo Radley said:
No. I am however sying cars are a needed risk, much like weapons were when this country was first formed. Taking a risk due to need is one thing. Taking it without need is another.

And no one is freaking out, but are instead trying to articulate how needless this is, and how there is no place for a weapon on campus.

Understand, if guns become prevelent on cmapus, you may well see those studies and statisitics you ask for. And that would be a shame, as it would mean we paid a cost for this. I believe we don't have to hit the wall with our head to know that hitting our head agianst the wall will hurt. We can make reasonable judgements before we do something needlessly that is risky.
Click to expand...

You know that hitting your head against the wall will hurt because people have previously hit their head against a wall and it hurt. There's data. Cars may be a "necessary" risk, but it's not really all that true. You could invest heavily into public transport and significantly lower some of those probabilities at least while traveling within a city. But we accept it because we like what having cars gets us. So we know that lots of people (more than on 9/11) will die every year because of our large consumption of cars and personal transportation. Guns still have a necessity and a purpose, even today.

In the end, this is what it comes down to. The individual has the right to keep and bear arms. You want to augment their ability to bear arms. To do so, you must have a valid reason. You saying it is "needless" is not a valid reason to infringe upon a right. You need something more. If this were a privilege, then yes there is a lot more room to restrict without the necessity and burden of proof. However, it is not privilege, it is a right and because it is a right the methods by which you can employ government force against the individual in terms of exercising that right becomes well more restrictive. You now do bear the burden of proof. That has not once been demonstrated. In fact, I've given you real world data that shows the opposite.

And as for guns becoming prevelent on campus, they won't. Even when you allow students to carry guns on campus, the vast majority of students will not. It's not like everyone is going to be walking around with a beer in one hand and a gun in the other. These are adults we are talking about, and they choose to take on the responsibility of being a gun owner or they do not. In the end, the point remains. If you cannot actually affect the dynamics of the real world system, you do not have proper call to restrict rights.
 
doctorhugo said:
Don't misread me Jerry. Ikari and some others got into the discussion involving gun possession in schools, and involving BOTH students and teachers...REMEMBER?. I commented, quite specifically, and with limitation to that reference I stated MY OPINION in that very limited area. Just because you may believe there are absolutely no exceptions to places where the right to keep and bear arms can be restricted doesn't mean my opinion is wrong. There are such limitations existing NOW in law. My entire comment, as you may see by reading it, centers about a discussion of what is or isn't "in the public interest". I can't be any clearer than that.

So what do you do? You jump on your high horse named Hyperbole tethered to the Very Conservative walk-down cooler and lay this crap on me:
You do yourself and the debate no good when you exaggerate so. You have posted long and enough to understand that a discussion titled:
is not so limiting as to make my comments off-topic. Please don't repeat this ridiculous pattern with me, I wouldn't do it with you. As I've said before here...I am never obtuse. I state what I believe. Learn to deal with freedom of speech Jerry. My opinion is as valid as yours and both are on-topic conjecture.
Click to expand...

That post didn't clarify your position at all.
 
Ikari said:
You know that hitting your head against the wall will hurt because people have previously hit their head against a wall and it hurt. There's data. Cars may be a "necessary" risk, but it's not really all that true. You could invest heavily into public transport and significantly lower some of those probabilities at least while traveling within a city. But we accept it because we like what having cars gets us. So we know that lots of people (more than on 9/11) will die every year because of our large consumption of cars and personal transportation. Guns still have a necessity and a purpose, even today.

In the end, this is what it comes down to. The individual has the right to keep and bear arms. You want to augment their ability to bear arms. To do so, you must have a valid reason. You saying it is "needless" is not a valid reason to infringe upon a right. You need something more. If this were a privilege, then yes there is a lot more room to restrict without the necessity and burden of proof. However, it is not privilege, it is a right and because it is a right the methods by which you can employ government force against the individual in terms of exercising that right becomes well more restrictive. You now do bear the burden of proof. That has not once been demonstrated. In fact, I've given you real world data that shows the opposite.

And as for guns becoming prevelent on campus, they won't. Even when you allow students to carry guns on campus, the vast majority of students will not. It's not like everyone is going to be walking around with a beer in one hand and a gun in the other. These are adults we are talking about, and they choose to take on the responsibility of being a gun owner or they do not. In the end, the point remains. If you cannot actually affect the dynamics of the real world system, you do not have proper call to restrict rights.
Click to expand...

I suspect there is not a wealth of studies on the wisdom of running your head into a wall, and I know we wouldn't need one to know it is a bad idea. ;)

And cars, regardless of other possible ways of doing it, still meet a real need, there is a real purpose.

And frankly, I worry more about those who think they need a gun on campus than anyone else. I question the thought process. And the more people who would think this way increases the odds that something will go wrong. it's a bad idea, and there is no reason to have a gun on campus.
 
I wonder, which is more dangerous, handguns on campus, or movies and video games that desensitize out kids to violence and death. Look at the rates of aggravated assaults... it's not the gun that is the issue, it's people.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I wonder, which is more dangerous, handguns on campus, or movies and video games that desensitize out kids to violence and death. Look at the rates of aggravated assaults... it's not the gun that is the issue, it's people.
Click to expand...

Not sure many of those are on campus, at least not where students just play them without any academic thought put into it.
 
Boo Radley said:
I suspect there is not a wealth of studies on the wisdom of running your head into a wall, and I know we wouldn't need one to know it is a bad idea. ;)

And cars, regardless of other possible ways of doing it, still meet a real need, there is a real purpose.

And frankly, I worry more about those who think they need a gun on campus than anyone else. I question the thought process. And the more people who would think this way increases the odds that something will go wrong. it's a bad idea, and there is no reason to have a gun on campus.
Click to expand...

And while you keep saying the same thing over and over again, you have not once offered valid argument for the use of government force against the exercise of an individual's rights.
 
Ikari said:
And while you keep saying the same thing over and over again, you have not once offered valid argument for the use of government force against the exercise of an individual's rights.
Click to expand...

Well, on that we disagree. I think I've laid out a logical argument. I don't believe there is any RIGHT to have guns on campus. There is also no need for one or any purpose for one, and making it a needless risk.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not on campus, in class.
Click to expand...

Wait...so your contention is that on campus, in class adults who choose to carry a weapon will be playing with it?
 
Ikari said:
Wait...so your contention is that on campus, in class adults who choose to carry a weapon will be playing with it?
Click to expand...

Nope. Someone might some time, but not as a rule. But they don't bring their tvs to class at all.
 
Boo Radley said:
Nope. Someone might some time, but not as a rule. But they don't bring their tvs to class at all.
Click to expand...

They don't need to, not if they have iphones or Droids and ****. Plus people bring their handhelds a lot too.
 
Ikari said:
They don't need to, not if they have iphones or Droids and ****. Plus people bring their handhelds a lot too.
Click to expand...

I don't allow them out, as they have no purpose in class. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't allow them out, as they have no purpose in class. ;)
Click to expand...

You don't allow them out eh? Well maybe if you're teaching at a high school you can almost have that much control. At university, freshmen/sophmore level you have none of that.

You say you teach and such at a dangerous school and that your observations of the students leads you to believe that allowing guns on University campus is a bad idea. What level of education are you teaching at?
 
Ikari said:
You don't allow them out eh? Well maybe if you're teaching at a high school you can almost have that much control. At university, freshmen/sophmore level you have none of that.

You say you teach and such at a dangerous school and that your observations of the students leads you to believe that allowing guns on University campus is a bad idea. What level of education are you teaching at?
Click to expand...

That's not true. I teach and have taught at that level and they are not allowed in class. They are turned off and put away. Now, the phone function has a purpose, so they are allowed on campus, but not for use in the classroom.

This is a popular video among college professors:

Mad Professor Smashes Cell Phone

;)
 
Ikari said:
You say you teach and such at a dangerous school and that your observations of the students leads you to believe that allowing guns on University campus is a bad idea. What level of education are you teaching at?
Click to expand...

When I taught at the second most dangerous college campus in America it was at a four year private college in Mississippi. I taught there for two years. As bad as it was, no ever used or felt the need for a gun that I ever heard tell of.

I am now department chair at a community college. And they will fight hard not to allow guns on campus, arguing just what I have argued with you, and with the backing not only of the police but the safety experts we had train us after VT. You have to understand that despite a lack of studies, reasonable people have thought about and see a logic you don't. Now we can demean them I suppose, but I suggest you might look at what is being argued.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom