• 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 Senate approves guns in college classrooms

Those statistics are of general gun use and ownership. Not of realistic increased/decreased risks by allowing students to carry on campus. That's the data you need. What you really need is a school which allows guns and has a much higher (statistically significant) gun crime rate on campus than the surrounding area. Only, you won't find that for a few reasons. One is that there is a limited data set, the other is that students even when allowed to carry guns rarely do. The ones who do choose to carry are responsible with the care and use of their firearms on campus. For all the campuses across America which allow guns to be carried, none of them are having gun crime problems above the background. That's just simple fact. That's what you have to deal with.

Yes, I know those are of general gun stats. They are stats that have a large enough sampling to be siginifcant. there is nothing with guns on campus comparable. That's kind of my point here.

I don't believe there is a significant number allowing guns, and especially nto in areas that are most likley to have problems.

There are limits on what the government can restrict from us. No matter if we THINK it's necessary to ban.

I agree there are limits. I really don't support a law that forbids you to have one in your home, or even to carry in a good number of places. But, on campus? No. The risk is to great and a fine place for limititations.


And when it happens you can do something. Our system of government force against the rights and liberties of the individual (force you wish to enact or keep present) is not proactive, it is reactive. Someone has to do something first.

I prefer to be a little more proactive, just in case is actually me. ;)


That's more due to desire than ability. But we must retain the tools for revolt regardless. A people without the means of overthrowing their government are a people enslaved.

I don't see revolution of this type in our future. And if such ever came about, we'll need more than weapons. Hands, even rifles, won't be near enough.
 
It's not a question of total percentage of accidents. What happens with other things is meaningless. The question was what is more likley to happen with a weapon and not how it compared to other things.

I used the last source for you, so you would accept the source biased your direction. Earlier in this thread someone dealt with the flaws in the numbers you're using. The biased site uses those numbers because it fits their POV. However, those are from a survey that only goes off what people say, not any verified information. As one source noted, those numbers are much too high when match against known crime statisitics. There are lots of reasons to doubt those numbers.

No, the numbers I quote are totals of actual deaths and sucides, and not some merely saying, yeah, I knew someone who committed sucide or shot themselves. Surely you can see the difference?

The number of firearm accidents I took directly from your quote from the second link. The amount of gun owners in the country are not really contested, I think we can all agree it's between 70-80 million Americans who currently own guns. So...the amount of accidents divided by the total number of gun owners is what I gave you. Media hype and bias aside, not even close to one percent of gunowners are being injured by their own guns. It's a hyperbole argument being thrown out by the Brady Bunch.

You can decide that you don't wish to carry a firearm. That's fine for you. It's a no-brainer for me. Looking at the numbers, I'd much rather take the small chance that I may some day make a mistake, than risk having to stand by while my family is raped and burned to death.
 
Yes, I know those are of general gun stats. They are stats that have a large enough sampling to be siginifcant. there is nothing with guns on campus comparable. That's kind of my point here.

I don't believe there is a significant number allowing guns, and especially nto in areas that are most likley to have problems.

See here's the real problem with your argument. You take some general stat and then say it's more likely to occur in X. The only problem is YOU HAVE NO DATA THAT WOULD EVEN SAY THAT X WOULD BE WORSE. You are making a leap in logic. To say what you want to say you need DATA FROM UNIVERSITIES WITH AND WITHOUT GUNS. For christ's sake, this shouldn't be so tough for you to understand. You're trying to claim something which isn't endorsed by anything you have posted. You want to say allowing adults to exercise their rights on campus will lead to negative consequences. Well there are Universities which already allow guns on campus and ones which do not. What does the DATA say? The DATA SAYS there is no statistical difference in the gun violence up/down from background between schools with gun bans and schools without gun bans.

That's the real data, that is the measurement which answers the question, the one you are trying your damnedest to avoid.

I agree there are limits. I really don't support a law that forbids you to have one in your home, or even to carry in a good number of places. But, on campus? No. The risk is to great and a fine place for limititations.

You think the risk is too great. But there is no data which supports your claim. In fact all data we have currently SAYS THE EXACT OPPOSITE!!!!!!!


I prefer to be a little more proactive, just in case is actually me. ;)

You can feel that way all you want. But it's not proper use of government force, it's tyranny. It's an example of why we need guns and should be carrying them in the first place.


I don't see revolution of this type in our future. And if such ever came about, we'll need more than weapons. Hands, even rifles, won't be near enough.

it doesn't matter if you see it or not. Revolution is a valid and accepted tool of the People should the government no longer serve our needs. The tools of which must be afforded to the general populace.
 
Last edited:
...and why should the fact that some people choose not further their training negatively impact those who do wish to carry responsibly. Should everyone be barred from racing in NASCAR because a few haven't taken the time to practice the track? There are already laws in place to address the impoper use of firearms. There need not be extra restrictions on those who do choose to be responsible gun owners.

I don't particularly care whether or not people can legally carry concealed firearms. It should be a personal choice, which would shift the emphasis to responsible individuals, not some politically charged emotion about self-defense on college campuses. Mentally unbalanced and criminal individuals are always able to satisfy their desire for weapons (for less money than on the legal market). Encouraging the immediate gratification oriented general public, especially of college age, who could care less about even minimal ongoing training to carry concealed weapons seems more dangerous than prudent, accidents waiting to happen.
 
See here's the real problem with your argument. You take some general stat and then say it's more likely to occur in X. The only problem is YOU HAVE NOT DAMNED DATA THAT WOULD EVEN SAY THAT X WOULD BE WORSE. You are making a leap in logic. To say what you want to say you need DATA FROM UNIVERSITIES WITH AND WITHOUT GUNS. For christ's sake, this shouldn't be so tough for you to understand. You're trying to claim something which isn't endorsed by anything you have posted. You want to say allowing adults to exercise their rights on campus will lead to negative consequences. Well there are Universities which already allow guns on campus and ones which do not. What does the DATA say? The DATA SAYS there is no statistical difference in the gun violence up/down from background between schools with gun bans and schools without gun bans.

That's the real data, that is the measurement which answers the question, the one you are trying your damnedest to avoid.

We don't have that data yet, so we have to think. We don't have enough universities with guns on campus, and we don't have such in areas most likely to be problems yet. Studies are good, and I agree support is often required. But it should never replace logical thought. As we get more data, we can show it. It will likely support one of us. But until we get it, we're prevented from thinking.


You think the risk is too great. But there is no data which supports your claim. In fact all data we have currently SAYS THE EXACT OPPOSITE!!!!!!!

I've seen no data that says the opposite. I've seen no specific data period. And I am continuing to look. If you have it, post it.



You can feel that way all you want. But it's not proper use of government force, it's tyranny. It's an example of why we need guns and should be carrying them in the first place.

Government makes laws and restrictions all the time, properly, aith our consent. This is not tyranny.



it doesn't matter if you see it or not. Revolution is a valid and accepted tool of the People should the government no longer serve our needs. The tools of which must be afforded to the general populace.

There is place for revolution. I merely say I see it happening here in our life time. And I pray it doesn't. none of us will like that kind of suffering.
 
The number of firearm accidents I took directly from your quote from the second link. The amount of gun owners in the country are not really contested, I think we can all agree it's between 70-80 million Americans who currently own guns. So...the amount of accidents divided by the total number of gun owners is what I gave you. Media hype and bias aside, not even close to one percent of gunowners are being injured by their own guns. It's a hyperbole argument being thrown out by the Brady Bunch.

You can decide that you don't wish to carry a firearm. That's fine for you. It's a no-brainer for me. Looking at the numbers, I'd much rather take the small chance that I may some day make a mistake, than risk having to stand by while my family is raped and burned to death.

Again, not the point. I'm not disputing the accident numbers. Or the sucicde numbers. Nor are you. Be it 1% or 181%, more shot themselves then they shot criminals (accident and sucide).
 
You can decide that you don't wish to carry a firearm. That's fine for you. It's a no-brainer for me. Looking at the numbers, I'd much rather take the small chance that I may some day make a mistake, than risk having to stand by while my family is raped and burned to death.

And the odds of the latter occurring would be?

It seems as if you're implying that you're less likely to injure yourself with your own firearm than your family is to be raped and burned to death.
 
We don't have that data yet, so we have to think. We don't have enough universities with guns on campus, and we don't have such in areas most likely to be problems yet. Studies are good, and I agree support is often required. But it should never replace logical thought. As we get more data, we can show it. It will likely support one of us. But until we get it, we're prevented from thinking.

The data exists, you just don't want to acknowledge it. Colorado ain't the only place that allows guns in Universities. There are plenty of universities across America which allow guns. You don't want to look at it, you want to say "it's too small" blah blah blah. But the fact of the matter is, it exists. And you know what the real world says? The exact opposite that you are saying. So between your fantasy and reality, I'm siding with reality. You have no numbers, you have no proof, you have no logic. You want to say you're thinking, I'm doubting it. Because a rational individual would take a look at the real world and see what's happening first before making supposition and "I think"s. The real world says guns on campus is a non-factor.


I've seen no data that says the opposite. I've seen no specific data period. And I am continuing to look. If you have it, post it.

You want to use government force against the rights and liberties of the individual, adults in our society. You have to demonstrate the necessity, not just say "I think" blah blah blah. That's not proof; that's supposition. You've seen no real data because you don't want to see it. You don't want to look up the Universities with gun policies and see what their gun crime rate is compared to the surrounding area. You don't want to see if you're right. You just want to put out "I think" and "The police say" all over the place. Man up and see if you're actually right why don't you? If you want to use government force against the rights and liberties of the individual; you need proof. I told you EXACTLY how to get your proof. It doesn't exist because in the actual world you don't see all these Universities which allow guns looking like the OK Corral. They don't have any statistically significant deviation with background. But that's how you do it, that's the numbers you want to prove the point you want to make. There is real world results and measurements already. It's time for you to quit using supposition and appeal to authority and actually look up the reality of the situation to see if the force you are calling for is justified. Otherwise, mind your own business.

Government makes laws and restrictions all the time, properly, aith our consent. This is not tyranny.

Improper use of government force against the rights and liberties of the individual is indeed tyranny.


There is place for revolution. I merely say I see it happening here in our life time. And I pray it doesn't. none of us will like that kind of suffering.

It may not happen for awhile, revolution is serious business. Still the People must be allowed access to the tools for such. It is a necessity in keeping a free state.
 
The data exists, you just don't want to acknowledge it. Colorado ain't the only place that allows guns in Universities. There are plenty of universities across America which allow guns. You don't want to look at it, you want to say "it's too small" blah blah blah. But the fact of the matter is, it exists. And you know what the real world says? The exact opposite that you are saying. So between your fantasy and reality, I'm siding with reality. You have no numbers, you have no proof, you have no logic. You want to say you're thinking, I'm doubting it. Because a rational individual would take a look at the real world and see what's happening first before making supposition and "I think"s. The real world says guns on campus is a non-factor.

if so, present it. I have a screen up searching right now by am failing to find anything.



You want to use government force against the rights and liberties of the individual, adults in our society. You have to demonstrate the necessity, not just say "I think" blah blah blah. That's not proof; that's supposition. You've seen no real data because you don't want to see it. You don't want to look up the Universities with gun policies and see what their gun crime rate is compared to the surrounding area. You don't want to see if you're right. You just want to put out "I think" and "The police say" all over the place. Man up and see if you're actually right why don't you? If you want to use government force against the rights and liberties of the individual; you need proof. I told you EXACTLY how to get your proof. It doesn't exist because in the actual world you don't see all these Universities which allow guns looking like the OK Corral. They don't have any statistically significant deviation with background. But that's how you do it, that's the numbers you want to prove the point you want to make. There is real world results and measurements already. It's time for you to quit using supposition and appeal to authority and actually look up the reality of the situation to see if the force you are calling for is justified. Otherwise, mind your own business.

I believe I've made a logical case. No data true, but that isn't all there is to logic.

Improper use of government force against the rights and liberties of the individual is indeed tyranny.

I don't believe anything I've suggested is improper. We ahve ahd these restrictions, do have these restrictions, as well as others and always have had some type of restriction.

It may not happen for awhile, revolution is serious business. Still the People must be allowed access to the tools for such. It is a necessity in keeping a free state.

Even with no guns laws at all, they simply won't have the tools.
 
Simple "yes" or "no" question:

Do you support students carrying guns on campus?

Please answer before going any further.

Now, I'm not saying that you're anti-gun for stating that criminals will always have access to guns. In fact, I completely agree with you on that. I've never even come remotely close to saying that laws will prevent bad people from getting guns on this board EVER. I'm calling you out for stating that you don't support the rights of law-abiding gun owners to protect themselves from the criminals.

AP said:
AUSTIN, Texas - Republicans in the Texas Senate on Monday approved allowing concealed handgun license holders to carry weapons into public college buildings and classrooms, moving forward on a measure that had stalled until supporters tacked it on to a universities spending bill.

Please copy and paste anything I directly said about supporting the BRADY CROWD...or any other group for or against the ability to carry a concealed gun holder (who is such by the laws of the state).

...or was I just "reading words that weren't there" when you were supporting the Brady crowd and talking about people shooting up frat parties if they carried on campus?

Ahhhhhhhh, now I get it...Making a comment about a potential outcome of mixing drugs and booze with guns at a frat party...is the deal with you?

Please copy and paste any direct comments stating I was in support of "the Brady Crowd"...and even if I was?

Please copy and past any comments that I made that says: "I don't support the rights of law-abiding gun owners to protect themselves from the criminals."

And what part of:
Removable Mind said:
I don't hunt. So, I might not own a gun if it weren't for criminals, mentally impaired who might just go off the deep end...and of course governments.
don't you understand. I am a law abiding citizen who has a gun to protect myself, my family and property from all of the aforementioned entities. And I believe that ALL law abiding citizens should indeed have that right.

And what part of:
Personally I don't care where "Licensed" concealed weapons are allowed "by law".
don't you understand. You see, the Bill just passed in Texas Senate that allows guns on Campus REQUIRES A LICENSE FOR CONCEALED WEAPONS. Ya dig?

Since I'm not a lawmaker, and I don't have any influence over the laws made in the State of Texas or any other state...I try my best to be a law abiding citizen.

So if your question means me saying to you that I support guns on colleges...

My support is where my personal control lies...and that's to attempt to follow the law.

Now, unless you are a lawmaker in Colorado, I suspect that whether or not you support or don't support specific legislation...make no matter to your legislators and the reality is...you personally have no control over that process any more than I do.

Ultimately, your position is not more or less than mine....over whatever I choose my position to be because you don't have anymore choice than I do

And to top it off...I don't have to share with anybody about what my positions are. I take those to the voters booth.

This is America. I can choose to support anything I want to. Or I can choose not to support anything I want to...and it doesn't make my position any less valuable than yours.

BUT...just for the RECORD...and you can copy and paste this and store it on your computer for future reference...I don't have a standing objection concealed weapons on Texas campuses...until actions prove that isn't a viable option. And that goes for any other place that's by the statutes legally allows firearms.

However...if there is any future incidents that shows carrying a conceal weapon on Texas campuses was the wrong thing to do...by some obvious actions that prove it to be...you'd find some reason to dispute that...right? As long as it's not your college kids or you own kid involved...you will dispute any future legislative attempt to resend that law IF there is warranted proof it wasn't a good idea...right?

Any other issues?
 
Last edited:
if so, present it. I have a screen up searching right now by am failing to find anything.

Colorado, Utah, Michigan, and Virginia all have schools which allow guns on campus. This is how you do it. Michigan State University allows guns. MSU is in East Lansing. What you need is the gun crime stats for MSU and the gun crime stats of East Lansing. Both are relatively low. Take the ratio. Find any school in Michigan which doesn't allow guns, like University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, do the same. Compare the ratio. Is there significant deviation one way or the other? That's how you compile the data you need to compile to prove your point. Soon the schools in Texas will allow even more data collection for universities with guns. But if you want to use government force properly against the rights and liberties of the individual; you have to prove your case. If you cannot prove it, for whatever reason, then you have presented no reason as to why we should accept this as legitimate use of government force. That's the end all be all of the argument.


I believe I've made a logical case. No data true, but that isn't all there is to logic.

You've made jumps in logic; you've pieced together things through assumption and supposition; yes.

I don't believe anything I've suggested is improper. We ahve ahd these restrictions, do have these restrictions, as well as others and always have had some type of restriction.

Because something exists does not mean that it's right.

Even with no guns laws at all, they simply won't have the tools.

Let us worry about that. If it is necessary to call to arms, arms must be around to be picked up.
 
Colorado, Utah, Michigan, and Virginia all have schools which allow guns on campus. This is how you do it. Michigan State University allows guns. MSU is in East Lansing. What you need is the gun crime stats for MSU and the gun crime stats of East Lansing. Both are relatively low. Take the ratio. Find any school in Michigan which doesn't allow guns, like University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, do the same. Compare the ratio. Is there significant deviation one way or the other? That's how you compile the data you need to compile to prove your point. Soon the schools in Texas will allow even more data collection for universities with guns. But if you want to use government force properly against the rights and liberties of the individual; you have to prove your case. If you cannot prove it, for whatever reason, then you have presented no reason as to why we should accept this as legitimate use of government force. That's the end all be all of the argument.

Wouldn't it be better to have stats that include all of them? Frankly, there amy bge other factors involved either way. Even I showed there was more truouble at a school with guns allowed, it is likely there are reasons beyond the guns for it (which inpart is why I think some areas have larger risk factors than others). Do you really think this method would be conclusive?


You've made jumps in logic; you've pieced together things through assumption and supposition; yes.

I don't think the leaps are that large. More people do shoot themselves, and young people are more likely to use poor judgment. I think this is true. adding guns to the mix would logically increase the risk.



Because something exists does not mean that it's right.

Doesn't mean it's wrng either. However, the fact is we have allowed it, and stood by it legally.

Let us worry about that. If it is necessary to call to arms, arms must be around to be picked up.

If there is need for revolution, I would prefer something that might actually work. ;)
 
when I was in college they were good guys. I remember one day, two of my suitemates (we had two bedrooms, one living room-four guys as freshman) were smoking some dope while me and the other non-doper were tossing down a few "Tuborg Golds" while playing some Led ZEp at unsafe volumes. We get a knock on the door and its the campus cops. The Sgt holds his nose and said-DO YOU BOYS HAVE ANY UNREGISTERED SPACE HEATERS OR STOVES. no sir I said. the other cop said CARRY ON BOYS and left. Campus cops were generally pretty cool and did a good job since it was considered a plumb job. The New Haven cops weren't bad, most of them were the cousins or brothers or dads of the local guys who were football players-Yale tended to get the cream of the crop of the local football talent and like the cops many were of Italian extraction.

I remember some of ours wore mirrored sunglasses, and all the chrome their shirts and utility belts could hold. They'd strut through like they were looking for a reason to get somebody.
 
BUT...just for the RECORD...and you can copy and paste this and store it on your computer for future reference...I don't have a standing objection concealed weapons on Texas campuses...until actions prove that isn't a viable option. And that goes for any other place that's by the statutes legally allows firearms.

That was a whole lot of words that were neither "yes," nor "no" like I asked, but the above quote I think is enough to begin to tackle your position. It seems you're a bit confused on the issue at hand though, since you jumped on the “blood in the streets” bandwagon early in the thread, but miraculously reversed direction when pressured for your personal opinion. If you don't have a problem with guns on campus, why were you bringing up the tired ole' anti-gun crowd argument about guns at frat parties (which has not been a visible problem so far?) Didn't you say you supported everyone's right to carry everywhere until it was proven to be a bad idea? It seems your initial judgement may have been a bit premature...

Oh...and the Brady quote was when you were defending the Brady Bunch to Turtle by saying:

TD...your tortoise shell gets sooooo illuminous when you get all hot and bothered...

Brady ninnes? How many people to you care about has ever been shot in the head?

How many people of the Brady Bill crowd have had loved ones shot in the head. One that I know of. Do you care to defend either of those quotes in light of your new stance on this issue, or should we all just pretend you never posted them? ;)
 
I have been involved in a shooting where I was the victim of an attempted mugging that was stopped with a near fatal gunshot inflicted upon one of the two assailants. I have also taught CCW courses, and have over 35 years of competitive shooting experience in both handgun and shotgun tournaments and I have trained police officers, federal law enforcement officers and licensed civilians in both shooting and the use of force.

Good plot... Who plays you? When's the movie coming out?

ricksfolly
 
These are fairly widely known stats. But I'll give you some links:

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, a criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
Journal of Trauma, 1998

Stop Handgun Violence: The Facts

The largest category of firearms fatality is suicide, not homicide. In 1997, 54 percent of all gun deaths were suicides, and 42 percent were homicides.16

(snip)

Self Defense

For every time a gun in the home is used in a self-defense homicide, a gun will be used in�


1.3 unintentional deaths

4.6 criminal homicides

37 suicides22

VPC - Handgun Ban Fact Sheet

In 2007, there were 613 fatal firearm accidents in the United States, constituting 0.5% of 123,706 fatal accidents that year.[120]

(snip)

In 2007, there were roughly 15,698 emergency room visits for non-fatal firearm accidents . . . .

Gun Control

The last one, though hardly a non-biased site, clearly shows over 16,000 people shot themselves in 2007.


Untrue.

Estimates on self-defense useage ranges from extreme lows of around 80,000 to extreme highs of 2.5 million, annually. If the truth is somewhere in the middle, guns protect people dozens if not hundreds of times more often than they are used to inflict unintentional or needless or unlawful harm.


Liberty and fundamental rights FTW.
 
That was a whole lot of words that were neither "yes," nor "no" like I asked, but the above quote I think is enough to begin to tackle your position. It seems you're a bit confused on the issue at hand though, since you jumped on the “blood in the streets” bandwagon early in the thread, but miraculously reversed direction when pressured for your personal opinion. If you don't have a problem with guns on campus, why were you bringing up the tired ole' anti-gun crowd argument about guns at frat parties (which has not been a visible problem so far?) Didn't you say you supported everyone's right to carry everywhere until it was proven to be a bad idea? It seems your initial judgement may have been a bit premature...

Oh...and the Brady quote was when you were defending the Brady Bunch to Turtle by saying:



How many people of the Brady Bill crowd have had loved ones shot in the head. One that I know of. Do you care to defend either of those quotes in light of your new stance on this issue, or should we all just pretend you never posted them? ;)

Ah....a Brady Bunch doomsayer like your bud TD. The world is out to get ya, huh? Paranoia does that to folks who are trapped inside their own fiction that can see, hear, and feel that knock on the door of the government coming to take away your guns. Oh, and lets not forget the criminals who stalk you...waiting to get ya. Yep, its a cruel world, indeed.

As I clearly said before, this is America...you know how it all works, right? I get my say...despite your disagreements. I bring up whatever I want about anything. That includes that "TIRED OLE' anti-gun crowd argument.

You see...I think now...that you've really gotten down to the real issue here.

You are using your Brady Bunch doomsayers nonsense to use as a means to really slam my patriotism. Right? My comment to TD...is a valid question. People say the wildest thing until they are faced with the very issues that they so often criticized others for. And that's really nothing more than "If you don't believe as I do"...then you whatever the hell you believe has no value. In my opinion...yep, opinion, TD does this frequently. Now it wouldn't be so bad if he would offer something tangible to go along with his arguments, but he rarely does. Is that how you work it as well?

Is this what this is about? I'm not sown to your ideologies, your beliefs, your opinions...so obviously, mine are valueless.... So you try to dump your paranoia about gun ownership disguised as a tool to question other peoples beliefs about their rights and attempt to dissect and degrade all who doesn't meet your level of paranoia. Good Boy...you done good, man.

I was more than clear about my being a gun owner, I was more than clear about my beliefs of the rights of individuals to protect his or her person, family, property. I made it clear that I was for ANY lawful use of weapons. But that isn't what you needed....not wanted...but NEEDED. Because I said that mixing drugs, booze and guns... Whooooa...that hit a tender spot didn't it.

But since you brought it up...our prisons are full of people who got drugged up and drunk...killed somebody and then cried..."Oh, please, I didn't know what I was doing." Think that's an impossible situation with a bunch of frat kids? Of course you do. That's just impossible, right. NO MORE impossible than that crazy people who's gone campuses and randomly killed people.

Oh, wait...what you are lacking from me to clarify is that there just wont be as many death incidents among frats who get stoned and shoot somebody as often as a wacknut who just decides to kill a bunch of people. Yeah...well, you know how those darn collateral damage thing goes. So one has to outweigh the other for it to validate your point.

People kill each other every day. So...your all for doing what about it? I know...NOTHING. Because you can't. Now, your stance on guns...cool, stock up a million of them. But the second you break the law using one of them...you need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Now...once and for all. I believe that people should have to right to bear arms along with the responsibility of obeying the laws as it pertains to ownership.

And if I ever get into a situation where I need to use my gun...I'll will truly wished that it was you that had the pleasure of being in my place - because I don't ever want to be in that situation. Something tells me that you just can't wait.
 
Ah....a Brady Bunch doomsayer like your bud TD. The world is out to get ya, huh? Paranoia does that to folks who are trapped inside their own fiction that can see, hear, and feel that knock on the door of the government coming to take away your guns. Oh, and lets not forget the criminals who stalk you...waiting to get ya. Yep, its a cruel world, indeed.

As I clearly said before, this is America...you know how it all works, right? I get my say...despite your disagreements. I bring up whatever I want about anything. That includes that "TIRED OLE' anti-gun crowd argument.

You see...I think now...that you've really gotten down to the real issue here.

You are using your Brady Bunch doomsayers nonsense to use as a means to really slam my patriotism. Right? My comment to TD...is a valid question. People say the wildest thing until they are faced with the very issues that they so often criticized others for. And that's really nothing more than "If you don't believe as I do"...then you whatever the hell you believe has no value. In my opinion...yep, opinion, TD does this frequently. Now it wouldn't be so bad if he would offer something tangible to go along with his arguments, but he rarely does. Is that how you work it as well?

Is this what this is about? I'm not sown to your ideologies, your beliefs, your opinions...so obviously, mine are valueless.... So you try to dump your paranoia about gun ownership disguised as a tool to question other peoples beliefs about their rights and attempt to dissect and degrade all who doesn't meet your level of paranoia. Good Boy...you done good, man.

I was more than clear about my being a gun owner, I was more than clear about my beliefs of the rights of individuals to protect his or her person, family, property. I made it clear that I was for ANY lawful use of weapons. But that isn't what you needed....not wanted...but NEEDED. Because I said that mixing drugs, booze and guns... Whooooa...that hit a tender spot didn't it.

But since you brought it up...our prisons are full of people who got drugged up and drunk...killed somebody and then cried..."Oh, please, I didn't know what I was doing." Think that's an impossible situation with a bunch of frat kids? Of course you do. That's just impossible, right. NO MORE impossible than that crazy people who's gone campuses and randomly killed people.

Oh, wait...what you are lacking from me to clarify is that there just wont be as many death incidents among frats who get stoned and shoot somebody as often as a wacknut who just decides to kill a bunch of people. Yeah...well, you know how those darn collateral damage thing goes. So one has to outweigh the other for it to validate your point.

People kill each other every day. So...your all for doing what about it? I know...NOTHING. Because you can't. Now, your stance on guns...cool, stock up a million of them. But the second you break the law using one of them...you need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Now...once and for all. I believe that people should have to right to bear arms along with the responsibility of obeying the laws as it pertains to ownership.

And if I ever get into a situation where I need to use my gun...I'll will truly wished that it was you that had the pleasure of being in my place - because I don't ever want to be in that situation. Something tells me that you just can't wait.

*sigh* I'm sorry, sir, I'm really trying to keep up the debate, but your posts are steadily becoming more and and more wandering. I'm not even really sure what any of that was about... Maybe it's late in the day, but I feel like that was a really rambling, stream-of-consciousness type of post. Anyone care to translate?
 
Untrue.

Estimates on self-defense useage ranges from extreme lows of around 80,000 to extreme highs of 2.5 million, annually. If the truth is somewhere in the middle, guns protect people dozens if not hundreds of times more often than they are used to inflict unintentional or needless or unlawful harm.


Liberty and fundamental rights FTW.

What is true is debatable. At least you see the problem with statistics. But adding accidental shootings, not just those that led to deaths, with suicides, and I believe they do out number actual crminals shot (not questionable not shot statistics).
 
What is true is debatable. At least you see the problem with statistics. But adding accidental shootings, not just those that led to deaths, with suicides, and I believe they do out number actual crminals shot (not questionable not shot statistics).

You can "believe they do" all you want, but can you prove it? ;)
 
Wouldn't it be better to have stats that include all of them? Frankly, there amy bge other factors involved either way. Even I showed there was more truouble at a school with guns allowed, it is likely there are reasons beyond the guns for it (which inpart is why I think some areas have larger risk factors than others). Do you really think this method would be conclusive?

It gives the best comparisons. Calculate the ratio of campus gun crime to community gun crime for each University and then compare the Universities with gun bans to those without gun bans. That will tell you if allowing guns on campus has any functional effect at all. That's the data you're really after. Not some "well there are Y gun accidents, and people are X age, and thus if you assume all people in the X age bracket to act exactly alike and that all people in X age bracket would choose to carry a gun, you can say that situation Z is going to be worse". Which is really what you've done. You've based it on supposition and assumption; not proper correlation.

I don't think the leaps are that large. More people do shoot themselves, and young people are more likely to use poor judgment. I think this is true. adding guns to the mix would logically increase the risk.

Then why don't you look at universities with gun bans and those without; look at the ratios as I have explained them, and find out for sure if your supposition is correct. Because there's a ton of assumption in your "logic" for using government force against the rights and liberties of the individual.

Doesn't mean it's wrng either. However, the fact is we have allowed it, and stood by it legally.

So did slavery till we fought a war over it. The fact of the matter is that YOU are calling for government force against the individual, adults in our society of whom we are to recognize in full their rights and liberties. Thus it is up to you to prove, without strict conjecture and assumption, that there is a real and measurable effect. Until then, all your argument really comes down to is guessing.

If there is need for revolution, I would prefer something that might actually work. ;)

If there is need for revolution, I would prefer the people to have access to the tools of it. You're not going to rise up with pitchforks and torches these days.
 
It gives the best comparisons. Calculate the ratio of campus gun crime to community gun crime for each University and then compare the Universities with gun bans to those without gun bans. That will tell you if allowing guns on campus has any functional effect at all. That's the data you're really after. Not some "well there are Y gun accidents, and people are X age, and thus if you assume all people in the X age bracket to act exactly alike and that all people in X age bracket would choose to carry a gun, you can say that situation Z is going to be worse". Which is really what you've done. You've based it on supposition and assumption; not proper correlation.

I'm not so sure, but I have tried to find even these. Under this search: Gun violence at the University of Colorado. I found these: Google

So far working down it I have not found anything yet.


Then why don't you look at universities with gun bans and those without; look at the ratios as I have explained them, and find out for sure if your supposition is correct. Because there's a ton of assumption in your "logic" for using government force against the rights and liberties of the individual.

Again, I have been doing searches and have not found anything. I was under the assumption you ahd already done this and thought you could provide a link.


So did slavery till we fought a war over it. The fact of the matter is that YOU are calling for government force against the individual, adults in our society of whom we are to recognize in full their rights and liberties. Thus it is up to you to prove, without strict conjecture and assumption, that there is a real and measurable effect. Until then, all your argument really comes down to is guessing.

Would you really argue this is equal to slavery in any way? Seriously, no is losing anything by not having a gun in the classroom.


If there is need for revolution, I would prefer the people to have access to the tools of it. You're not going to rise up with pitchforks and torches these days.

What I'm saying is in today's world, this is really no longer the tool for it.
 
Obviously you aren't from Texas. Ever hear of illegal street vendors who sell to ex-cons, gangbangers, etc, etc... Being crazy doesn't prevent them from reading directions on about a bazillion websites that show how to make a hand gun. :comp: :shoot

exactly, that is why restrictions on honest people only creates disarmed victims
 
So... because criminals will always have access to guns, you support imposing restrictions that will only impact the law-abiding? That makes perfect sense...

It makes sense to the left

Here is why

disarmed people are more likely to cede rights to the nanny state in order to protect them from the criminals.

armed people are less likely to be in need of nanny state

anything that makes someone less dependent on the government is anathema to lefties

furthermore many lefties believe that a criminal is really not responsible for being a scum bag. its society's fault, its the rich peoples fault, its the fault of racism etc. in other words, killing a mope isn't really fair since the mope cannot help himself
 
As those have little to do with schools, I'm not sure it matters. But more guns would likely mean more shootings, a more people shooting themselves. The shooting themselves is certainly supported by stats.

really, when was the last time you heard of an accidental shooting at say the Grand American trap shoot-8000 people every one of them with a shotgun? the National Rifle and Pistol Matches at Camp perry that run a month-all sorts of scary looking "assault weapons"
 
Back
Top Bottom