- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,968
- Reaction score
- 60,502
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
You don't understand. There are gun rights people(I am one), gun users, and gun nuts.
You don't understand. There are gun rights people(I am one), gun users, and gun nuts.
lol, no. I dismissed it because it's ****ty data that doesn't prove anything. It's like comparing the number of people who go bankrupt in NY to the number of people who miss a credit card payment in CA and using that to draw conclusions about which state has more bankruptcies.
My bad, I forgot that two individual incidents on one side automatically outweigh hypothetical information about a policy that doesn't actually exist, despite the total lack of evidence that said hypothetical policy would have actually impacted either event.
Well, as best I can understand what you're saying, you seem to classify anyone with a carry permit and the willingness to act in defense of others, a "gun nut". If it is not so, then please clarify.
G.
Let me take a wild guess and assume that RinNYC, Redress and TNE would all have been "okay with it", if an armed campus security officer had walked in, seen what was going on, taken careful aim, and shot the perp in the act, saving the victim?
If so, explain how this differs from a lawfully armed citizen doing the same thing?
Don't say training and experience. I've been a cop; I was not impressed with most cop's gun skills.
G.
No, not a willingness, an eagerness.
You're missing the point by miles now.
I would have been 100% okay with it if an armed citizen had walked in, seen what was going on, taken careful aim, and shot the perp in the act, saving the victim. However, I think it's logical to conclude that a policy allowing that to happen in that case would also result in a number of excess deaths in other situations that would be larger than the one death prevented here.
Nobody is worried about experience and trained private citizens doing stupid ****. What we're concerned about is your average retard redneck 19 year old college kid who drinks a 30-rack of natty ice on most tuesday mornings doing stupid ****.
States that have instituted easy-to-get "shall issue" concealed carry permits have experienced a decline in violent crime, and typically no increase in accidental shootings, despite dramatically increasing the number of lawfully concealed weapons in public places.
In the face of this evidence, can you explain your position to me as something other than just opinion or gut-feelings?
G.
Redress, as I said, self-defense and defense of others is a subject I am passionate about, because of my life experiences.
If I came across as eager to be involved in such a situation, where I might have to shoot some perp, then I expressed myself poorly.
I have seen enough crap to last me a lifetime, believe me. If I live out my days and never find myself in a situation where I have to pull a gun again, that will suit me very well.
It is the attitude that lawfully armed citizens, with permits and training, are more of a danger to innocents than crazy scumbags like this decapitator, that causes me to get a bit upset. I've posted information that is available to anyone who looks for it, demonstrating that accidental gun deaths are a small risk, and defensive gun uses (even by the most conservative, government-sponsored studies) are far more common than accidental deaths... well the continued resistance to what seems to me to be self-evident is baffling.
States that have instituted easy-to-get "shall issue" concealed carry permits have experienced a decline in violent crime, and typically no increase in accidental shootings, despite dramatically increasing the number of lawfully concealed weapons in public places.
In the face of this evidence, can you explain your position to me as something other than just opinion or gut-feelings?
G.
To my knowlege most states do not allow someone under 21 to have a carry permit. It is so in my state, and I believe in most.
Most states either don't allow carrying into a bar, or have laws against carrying while intoxicated.
Regrettably, the same cannot be said of criminals and crazies, who ignore existing gun laws with depressing regularly and slaughter large numbers of innocents in no-gun-zones.
Again, this is a completely different issue. I am a proponent of shall-issue laws. I think it's idiotic that I can't own a handgun in NYC for defense. However, I believe that even though possession of guns by trained and responsible citizens may be a net positive in the majority of scenarios, there are a few particular settings where it may not be. I think that college campuses are one of those few places, due to their peculiar characteristics (namely the fact that they're populated by a whole bunch of young kids getting ****ed up and doing insanely stupid **** 24/7).
Let me turn the question back on you - do you believe that there are no places at all where gun possession should be banned? Courthouses? Congress? Sporting events?
Wait - so you think that bans on gun possession are always terrible ideas because they don't allow people to protect themselves in dangerous situations, but are okay with laws that ban gun possession in bars, a place where there are ****tons of dangerous situations?
Seems like the only difference between your position and mine is the list of places we'd ban them.
But it's okay if they die in a bar?
Ah; okay, I see where you stand on this better now. Thank you for clarifying your position.
Of course I agree there are places where carrying must be banned. Inside the jailhouse being one obvious one! :rofl
Courthouses...wouldn't do to have the victim's family armed in the same room as the accused.
Congress? Hm. Considering how a lot of people feel about certain politicians, I could understand that one too.
Where we differ, I suppose, is in what places should have such bans, or under what set of principles we determine whether X location should be no-guns or not. Based on my viewpoint of the armed citizenry, it is my opinion that no-gun-zones should only be created where there are compelling and overriding reasons why they must be no-carry...such as visitors at the jailhouse... and that otherwise places should be open to lawful carry.
Such places that are designated as no-carry really ought to have a much higher level of security than is typical on college campuses. Let's face it, there's a lot of crime on campuses (campi?) than never makes the news. Some colleges are practically happy-hunting grounds for rapists. IF they're going to be no-lawful-carry zones, then they need WAY more security. I say this as a father too.
OK then?
Addendum:
No, I'm actually not okay with that law, and I'm working with a grassroots organization to change it in my state. I'd prefer to see a law against carrying while intoxicated, just as we have with driving vehicles.
G.
See, this is where we differ. I think that the right to bear arms is fine and all, but there are places it is not appropriate. School being one of those places, for any number of reasons, but the main one is that kids of the age to be attending school are not all that bright about some things. Guns in school would cause alot more problems than they could ever hope to solve.
If there are crime problems at schools, how about giving a bunch of drunk/stoned partiers guns, we actually hire more security? Guns in the hands of civilians is rarely a realistic solution to a problem.
Lot's of sheep with no sheepdog - the wolf attacks.
Gun or no gun, I wish I had been there; I would have stopped that f*ck.
I doubt that sheepdogs would have deterred this guy from anything. He's obviously insane.
I doubt that sheepdogs would have deterred this guy from anything. He's obviously insane.
Obviously I disagree with your final statment strongly.
I'm not in favor of handing out pistols to teenage party animals. (Typically you have to be 21 to get a carry permit anyway.) However, teenage party animals are not the only denizens of universities. There are older students such as grad students and people who have finished a tour in the military, going to college on GI benefits. There are professors, administrators and maintenance men.
I could bring up the fact that we're talking about college students who are theoretically adults here, and the same age as most soldiers...but the extended adolescence that so many adult "kids" enjoy these days is an issue for a different thread.
IF colleges are going to be citizen-disarmament zones, a point I do not concede but will discuss, then yes they should have FAR more serious security than any presently do.
There's that little problem of money. Most places have token security, that is more about avoiding liability than actually preventing crime. Serious security that would actually be effective would cost a heck of a lot of money.... tuition would be far more expensive. Fewer people could afford to attend "Security U".
Allowing responsible adults with carry permits in should have no monetary cost, and according to the studies I've cited about accidental shootings that "cost" is highly improbable also. Again, I'm not talking about arming 19yo potheads, but responsible adults over 21, willing to go through the training and certification to obtain a permit.
G.
Goshin, 21 is, if anything, worse than 19. Those are the kids running to the package store for the 19 year olds. You also have not shown any real likelihood that these kids would reduce the number of school murders, or rapes, or anything.
What I find sad is when a tragedy like this happens, there are always some gun nuts trying to use it to promote the idea that somehow guns would protect people from random murderers. The reality is that while sad, these on campus murders are incredibly rare. Random bad things happen to people, but we should not make policy based on them
What I find sad is when a tragedy like this happens, there are always some gun nuts trying to use it to promote the idea that somehow guns would protect people from random murderers.
I am sorry you have such a low opinion of people who are theoretically responsible adults. If indeed none of them can be trusted to act responsibly, as you imply, why do we allow them to buy alcohol or drive cars? Neither is essential to college life, and the former actually an impediment. Perhaps we should raise drinking age to 25 and ban all alcohol and cars on college campus. Based on my last visit to a university, I think walking amongst all the teenage drivers was far more dangerous than anything else I'd done that week.
It's a serious question. If no 21 yr old can be trusted with a gun because they are so irresponsible with alcohol, why do we allow them to buy booze?? Why do we let them own and drive cars, which are involved in more annual deaths than guns??
Consistency? Lacking I think, with all due respect.
G.
Edited to add:
I wonder if you would do me the courtesy of assuming I actually wish people to be safer, even if our methodologies differ, and if you would refrain from implying I am a "gun nut" simply because we disagree. I would appreciate it.