Texas poised to pass bill allowing guns on campus

USA_1 · Feb 24, 2011

Kal'Stang said:
What state do you live in?

He said SD.

Boo Radley · Feb 24, 2011

Jerry said:
Your answer was:

The Harvard study doesn't anddress any of my points. I have not claimed it would reduce anything.

Do you have anyone of verifiable authority saying it? Link please.

Again, it boils down to verify what? I do assume a certain level of understanding of the world.

Accidental discharge is a crime, and a civil suit for damages would follow, also.

Yes, there would be. But it would go beyond that. Parents would attack the school. They would want to know what the hell guns were doing on campus. Anyone who has only partially paid attention to the nature of the world would know this.

Please cite the case-law or statute you're getting this information from.

It is difficult. But the rule for colleges is to not ingore reasonable possibilities for injury. Even if they are likley to win such a case, someone would argue that a reasonable person would see the likihood of something going badly.

Now guns have not been an issue on campus, but we can look at student safety as the guding prinicple:

More recent cases which reverses belatedly reverses this bystander approach and is gradually, but slowly working towards a more rational approach towards campus safety issues-Duty Era Cases.

Colleges’ Civil Liability Exposure Related to Student Safety-Executive Summary

Fornegligence liability purposes . . . . .

(snip)

What is more important, according to these cases, is whether the college took adequate precautions to ensure saftey of its students, even if it did not have total control of the site.

The Law of Higher Education - Google Books

And from a source you likel won't care for:

The change in CCW laws has had serious security implications for institutions concerned about the welfare of their customers, employees, and students. Can such institutions trust that CCW licensees are law-abiding, non-violent, well-trained citizens? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Many dangerous CCW applicants have slipped through faulty state background checks, while others have been marginal, highrisk applicants who nonetheless must be issued a CCW license because they do not fit within a narrow, pre-set list of excluded persons.

(snip)

Schools have a legal duty to provide safeenvironments for their students, employees,and visitors. Courts have established that
schools can be held liable if they do not takeadequate measures to maintain a safe environment.

http://www.arsafeschools.com/files/no_gun_left_behind_-_final.pdf

If you're trying to argue a demographic trend, please cite the study your getting your data from.

OK. you've never been to a college party, at spring break, or been in your 20's.

Binge drinking shows immaturity of some students

"Binge drinking is deadly," said Jackie McHargue, dean of students, in an e-mail interview. "Across the country, more than 1,000 students die every year in alcohol related deaths."

" + artTitle.replace("-","") + " - " + "The Blue Banner" + " - " + "Editorial" + "

COLUMN: Aussies attribute high drinking age to immaturity

COLUMN: Aussies attribute high drinking age to immaturity - Iowa State Daily: Opinion

Again, there's a difference between a flook criminal and general demographic. Please site the study you're getting your information from.

Not sure what you mean by flook (a typo perhaps?) And it is true, here I draw on personal experience of working on an ambulence for a decade and seeing people shoot themselves a lot, and I have a ton of stories on the matter. But, I don't think it takes a study to know we don't know, use or work with guns like did once upon a time.

In 2007, there were 613 fatal firearm accidents in the United States . . .

Gun Control

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Working links to research studies by credentialed persons or institutions, statistics, crime data from government or credentialed sources, etc. At this point, a link of any kind would be a step forward for you. It's irrational, if not utterly arrogant, to simply state your opinion and assume others are just going to instantly agree.

There is certainly a place for support, links, but it should not replace the ability to reason. Without the ability to reason, a link is meaningless. We all live in this world, and experience is also important to reasoning.

Jerry · Feb 25, 2011

TheBook said:
I've shown evidence. Twice. It was ignored both times.

Because I don't know what you're trying to say.

Let's clerify:

TheBook said:
Something to note, the NRA named 10 states as lacking a "right to carry" law. This is a list from the most recent FBI crime database, with those 10 stats highlighted.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...me-states.html

Ok, there are 10 states without a right to carry law.....and?

TheBook said:
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence made a list of states with what they call lax gun control laws.

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence : Media

Alright, pro-gun-control doesn't like the lack of gun control in a few states.....what's your point?

TheBook said:
Basically, the argument that guns make people safer is NOT shown by this data. The argument that being restrictive about them isn't either.

So, basically, your data is benign. It neither supports nor opposes either side, is what you just said. Ok....so what?

Jerry · Feb 25, 2011

Boo Radley said:
The Harvard study doesn't anddress any of my points.

Apart from backhoes not fitting through church doors, I honestly have no idea what any of your points are.

Boo Radley said:
Again, it boils down to verify what? I do assume a certain level of understanding of the world.

Assuming "a certain level of understanding of the world" is like my showing up to a fresh lot and assuming the foundation is finished. Boo Radley, you and I don't even have sewer or electrical ready. We're not ready for the curb and gutter, even, because we don't have a common plat plan for the township.

Don't assume anything.

Boo Radley said:
Yes, there would be. But it would go beyond that. Parents would attack the school. They would want to know what the hell guns were doing on campus. Anyone who has only partially paid attention to the nature of the world would know this.

You asked, I answered. I don't see how this advanced your argument.

Boo Radley said:
It is difficult. But the rule for colleges is to not ingore reasonable possibilities for injury. Even if they are likley to win such a case, someone would argue that a reasonable person would see the likihood of something going badly.

Now guns have not been an issue on campus, but we can look at student safety as the guding prinicple:

Since guns lower the crime rate, gun-free-zones are public hazards and any property, public or private, who wishes to have a gun-free-zone should have to seek a permit from the State and show cause just like they do for any other public hazard.

Boo Radley said:
OK. you've never been to a college party, at spring break, or been in your 20's.

I try to spend all my free time with my 2 sons. Between class and work, I don't have time for drinking for the sake of drinking.

Besides, liquor isn't allowed on campus.

Boo Radley said:
This is exactly why you need to make your argument objective instead of "

Binge drinking shows immaturity of some students

"Binge drinking is deadly," said Jackie McHargue, dean of students, in an e-mail interview. "Across the country, more than 1,000 students die every year in alcohol related deaths."

" + artTitle.replace("-","") + " - " + "The Blue Banner" + " - " + "Editorial" + "

COLUMN: Aussies attribute high drinking age to immaturity

COLUMN: Aussies attribute high drinking age to immaturity - Iowa State Daily: Opinion

That's a strong argument for banning alcohol from the campus. At Black Hills State University, we're not allowed to have liquor on the property, not even beer, ever. See, this is why it's erroneous to "assume a certain level of understanding of the world". We don't all have Boo Radley's life experiences. At BHSU, yes there are parties, but not out of control frat parties like you see in a teen movies. That's just hollywood. That's not real.

Boo Radley said:
And it is true, here I draw on personal experience of working on an ambulence for a decade and seeing people shoot themselves a lot, and I have a ton of stories on the matter. But, I don't think it takes a study to know we don't know, use or work with guns like did once upon a time.

See, that proves my point against using personal experience again; I don't know the world from the side of a gurney as you do. I know the world from the grip of a hammer.

In 2007, there were 613 fatal firearm accidents in the United States . . .

Gun Control

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You just proved that A. accidents happen, and B. there are stupid people. Toss in alcohol and you have a perfectly safe learning environment, yes?

Boo Radley said:
There is certainly a place for support, links, but it should not replace the ability to reason. Without the ability to reason, a link is meaningless. We all live in this world, and experience is also important to reasoning.

Of course. Ban liquor, allow the firearm.

Jerry · Feb 25, 2011

TheBook said:
Dang, that'll make getting away with murder so, so much easier. Not to mention gun-running.

I know it can be fun to say things like that, but if you can ever demonstrate how that might actually be fact, please let us know.

Boo Radley · Feb 25, 2011

Jerry said:
Apart from backhoes not fitting through church doors, I honestly have no idea what any of your points are.

Well, it's not that it would lower anything. Create more risk. Needless risk. Kind of like Car sufering and NCLB, other dumb ideas.

Assuming "a certain level of understanding of the world" is like my showing up to a fresh lot and assuming the foundation is finished. Boo Radley, you and I don't even have sewer or electrical ready. We're not ready for the curb and gutter, even, because we don't have a common plat plan for the township.

Don't assume anything. [/QUOTE]

All agruments have assumptions. It is virtually impossible not to have some.

You asked, I answered. I don't see how this advanced your argument.

I guess it's equal then as I don't understand this coment. :shrug:

Since guns lower the crime rate, gun-free-zones are public hazards and any property, public or private, who wishes to have a gun-free-zone should have to seek a permit from the State and show cause just like they do for any other public hazard.

Speaking of assumptions, that is not a proven fact. Have you ever heard of the causal relationship (fallacy) error? You may want to look that up.

I try to spend all my free time with my 2 sons. Between class and work, I don't have time for drinking for the sake of drinking.

Besides, liquor isn't allowed on campus.

Which has nothing to do with any pointed you're responding to.

That's a strong argument for banning alcohol from the campus. At Black Hills State University, we're not allowed to have liquor on the property, not even beer, ever. See, this is why it's erroneous to "assume a certain level of understanding of the world". We don't all have Boo Radley's life experiences. At BHSU, yes there are parties, but not out of control frat parties like you see in a teen movies. That's just hollywood. That's not real.

But keep in in context of our discussion. It speaks to maturity.

See, that proves my point against using personal experience again; I don't know the world from the side of a gurney as you do. I know the world from the grip of a hammer.

Personal experience is not conclusive, not for either of us, but it can give insight. A lot of people don't know the tool well as evidenced not only by personal exience, but by satisitics that show a large number of people hurting not criminals, but themselves.

You just proved that A. accidents happen, and B. there are stupid people. Toss in alcohol and you have a perfectly safe learning environment, yes?

Yep. And there are likely to be more of them in school as they all haven't matured yet. Giving them guns is not wise to carry around at school is not wise.

Of course. Ban liquor, allow the firearm.

Alcohol only makes the problem worse. the problem is there even without the alcohol.

Ikari · Feb 25, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Yep. And there are likely to be more of them in school as they all haven't matured yet. Giving them guns is not wise to carry around at school is not wise.

I don't see the point. I have bars and guns on my campus, and it's not like it's the OK Corral out there. In fact, we've never had a school shooting.

Boo Radley · Feb 25, 2011

Ikari said:
I don't see the point. I have bars and guns on my campus, and it's not like it's the OK Corral out there. In fact, we've never had a school shooting.

I don't think I said the OK corral, but that the risk increases needlessly. It's just not a good idea. Not everyone who car sufered got hurt. But it was stupid all the same.

Ikari · Feb 25, 2011

Boo Radley said:
I don't think I said the OK corral, but that the risk increases needlessly. It's just not a good idea. Not everyone who car sufered got hurt. But it was stupid all the same.

Yeah, but car surfing has inherent dangers in it. Adults with guns does not. You're making assumptions about maturity, alcohol consumption, use of firearm, and convergence of groups. Sure, a lot of college students drink themselves stupid; but those aren't necessarily the ones who carry guns. In fact, it's typically not. Or if one who usually conceal carries does get drunk, often times they leave their gun at home (in fact, you're not allowed to conceal carry if you're drinking). I don't see the risk increase. It's marginal at best, it's not going to drastically affect probabilities of life and death. And as we can see in the real world in CO, it doesn't mean there will be increased shootings or violence. Ft. Collins is a safe place...so long as Greeley stays in Greeley. But that's not the fault of guns, that's just f'n Greeley.

Jerry · Feb 25, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Well, it's not that it would lower anything. Create more risk. Needless risk. Kind of like Car sufering and NCLB, other dumb ideas.

This is exactly the sort of claim you need to back up directly. Show an actual, real instance where more guns = more crime.

I gave you credible research demonstrating, comprehensibly, that guns lower crime. You need to show an actual, real, case in point where guns increased the crime rate.

Boo Radley said:
Speaking of assumptions, that is not a proven fact. Have you ever heard of the causal relationship (fallacy) error? You may want to look that up.

Please show us how Harvard made a causal relationship error in the study I quoted in the OP.

Boo Radley said:
Which has nothing to do with any pointed you're responding to.

Your "point" was that I had no experience in a collage nor was I over the age of 20. In fact, I'm 32, and the collages I've attended do not permit alcohol on campus, so there are no drunken frat parties.

Boo Radley said:
But keep in in context of our discussion. It speaks to maturity.

Not in my state, it doesn't. This is the inherent problem with basing your argument off of your experience; no one but you shares your experience. You need empirical data.

Boo Radley said:
Alcohol only makes the problem worse. the problem is there even without the alcohol.

Alcohol increases crime, guns lower crime, therefore ban alcohol and allow guns. Result: lower crime.

Jerry · Feb 25, 2011

Ikari said:
Yeah, but car surfing has inherent dangers in it. Adults with guns does not. You're making assumptions about maturity, alcohol consumption, use of firearm, and convergence of groups. Sure, a lot of college students drink themselves stupid; but those aren't necessarily the ones who carry guns. In fact, it's typically not. Or if one who usually conceal carries does get drunk, often times they leave their gun at home (in fact, you're not allowed to conceal carry if you're drinking). I don't see the risk increase. It's marginal at best, it's not going to drastically affect probabilities of life and death. And as we can see in the real world in CO, it doesn't mean there will be increased shootings or violence. Ft. Collins is a safe place...so long as Greeley stays in Greeley. But that's not the fault of guns, that's just f'n Greeley.

**** Greeley, 2 years of my life I'll never get back.

Boo Radley · Feb 25, 2011

Jerry said:
This is exactly the sort of claim you need to back up directly. Show an actual, real instance where more guns = more crime.

I gave you credible research demonstrating, comprehensibly, that guns lower crime. You need to show an actual, real, case in point where guns increased the crime rate.

Click to expand...

More crime? I think I said more accidents. And I gave accident stats. It's like more young people driving cars means more driving accidents. Young folks have more accidents than mature drives on average. Same is likely with guns, for much the same reasons.

Please show us how Harvard made a causal relationship error in the study I quoted in the OP.

Click to expand...

Harvrd isn't making the claim you are. They are not saying more guns lower the crime rate.

Your "point" was that I had no experience in a collage nor was I over the age of 20. In fact, I'm 32, and the collages I've attended do not permit alcohol on campus, so there are no drunken frat parties.

Click to expand...

Actually, that's not what I said. I amde ajoke that you have no experience if you believe things contrary to what experience should have taught you. But whether a young person drinks on campus or off campus, the issue was one of maturity and not drinking.

Not in my state, it doesn't. This is the inherent problem with basing your argument off of your experience; no one but you shares your experience. You need empirical data.

Click to expand...

No, it speaks to maturity regardless of state or personal experience. I think you're missing the point.

Alcohol increases crime, guns lower crime, therefore ban alcohol and allow guns. Result: lower crime.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that is not a fact. You're making a causal relationship error.

Boo Radley · Feb 25, 2011

Ikari said:
Yeah, but car surfing has inherent dangers in it. Adults with guns does not. You're making assumptions about maturity, alcohol consumption, use of firearm, and convergence of groups. Sure, a lot of college students drink themselves stupid; but those aren't necessarily the ones who carry guns. In fact, it's typically not. Or if one who usually conceal carries does get drunk, often times they leave their gun at home (in fact, you're not allowed to conceal carry if you're drinking). I don't see the risk increase. It's marginal at best, it's not going to drastically affect probabilities of life and death. And as we can see in the real world in CO, it doesn't mean there will be increased shootings or violence. Ft. Collins is a safe place...so long as Greeley stays in Greeley. But that's not the fault of guns, that's just f'n Greeley.

The point was that younger persons are more likely to be immature and do stupid things. Some drink themselves stupid. Some forget to go class and forget to drop when they get too far behind. Some drive to fast in bad whether, hurting themselves and others. Others throw a shot put in a classrom and take out a knee (actually happened). The point is, placing young inmature people in more dangerous situations isn't smart.

yes, we live with a certain amount of risk. And maybe we shouldn't even do as much as we do. We'd certainly lose less young folks if we dealt with out issues concering automobiles. But, there is no good reason to add yet another risk. There is no palce in the classroom for an armed student.

Ikari · Feb 25, 2011

Jerry said:
**** Greeley, 2 years of my life I'll never get back.

That place is a ****hole. Probably should be removed.

Ikari · Feb 25, 2011

Boo Radley said:
The point was that younger persons are more likely to be immature and do stupid things. Some drink themselves stupid. Some forget to go class and forget to drop when they get too far behind. Some drive to fast in bad whether, hurting themselves and others. Others throw a shot put in a classrom and take out a knee (actually happened). The point is, placing young inmature people in more dangerous situations isn't smart.

yes, we live with a certain amount of risk. And maybe we shouldn't even do as much as we do. We'd certainly lose less young folks if we dealt with out issues concering automobiles. But, there is no good reason to add yet another risk. There is no palce in the classroom for an armed student.

But you have no data to back your claim. You are making assumptions based on generalized behavior of undergraduates and then applying that stereotype to people who may wish to carry guns. One of the biggest threats to my life in my age group is car related fatality. One of the most dangerous age brackets for this are kids, 16-23 have terrible driving abilities, and then again on the downside. Do we ban the young and old from driving because it could potentially be dangerous? It's a hell of a lot more dangerous than a few people on campus carrying a gun. All you're saying is that you have a feeling it would be worse. Where as I tell you from personal experience, and real life data that in at least one State it has made NO difference. And it won't. Because the sheer numbers of people carrying weapons will not be that high. Believe it or not, most people will elect not to carry a gun. You're not actually affecting any probabilities. So in the absence of that, does it really make sense to restrict the rights and liberties of young adults because you have a feeling? I think the rational answer to that is "no".

Boo Radley · Feb 25, 2011

Ikari said:
But you have no data to back your claim. You are making assumptions based on generalized behavior of undergraduates and then applying that stereotype to people who may wish to carry guns. One of the biggest threats to my life in my age group is car related fatality. One of the most dangerous age brackets for this are kids, 16-23 have terrible driving abilities, and then again on the downside. Do we ban the young and old from driving because it could potentially be dangerous? It's a hell of a lot more dangerous than a few people on campus carrying a gun. All you're saying is that you have a feeling it would be worse. Where as I tell you from personal experience, and real life data that in at least one State it has made NO difference. And it won't. Because the sheer numbers of people carrying weapons will not be that high. Believe it or not, most people will elect not to carry a gun. You're not actually affecting any probabilities. So in the absence of that, does it really make sense to restrict the rights and liberties of young adults because you have a feeling? I think the rational answer to that is "no".

Yeah. I don't anyone who has studied guns in the classroom. So, to some degree you're right. but I didn't need a study to tell me car sufering was a bad idea either, or NCLB for that matter.

And while I agree with the numbers won't be high, sooner or later someone will make a mistake, especially if the idea goes national. The risk, small or large, is simply unecessary. It is one thing to take a necessary risk, and quite another to take one that isn't needed.

Ikari · Feb 25, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Yeah. I don't anyone who has studied guns in the classroom. So, to some degree you're right. but I didn't need a study to tell me car sufering was a bad idea either, or NCLB for that matter.

And while I agree with the numbers won't be high, sooner or later someone will make a mistake, especially if the idea goes national. The risk, small or large, is simply unecessary. It is one thing to take a necessary risk, and quite another to take one that isn't needed.

Sooner or later all probabilities will work out. Given enough time, we'll have another terrorist attack. Given enough time there will be another mass shooting. Given enough time there will be earthquakes and volcano eruptions. But if you have not significantly affected the probabilities, then you have done relatively nothing to the actual system at hand. To say there is more "danger", that statement needs to be quantified with calculated increases in probabilities highlighting significant increase in those probabilities above baseline. If you don't have that, you just have speculation and appeal to low probability events. I do not believe that low probability events are proper justification for the restriction and removal of an adult's ability to freely exercise their rights.

Boo Radley · Feb 25, 2011

Ikari said:
Sooner or later all probabilities will work out. Given enough time, we'll have another terrorist attack. Given enough time there will be another mass shooting. Given enough time there will be earthquakes and volcano eruptions. But if you have not significantly affected the probabilities, then you have done relatively nothing to the actual system at hand. To say there is more "danger", that statement needs to be quantified with calculated increases in probabilities highlighting significant increase in those probabilities above baseline. If you don't have that, you just have speculation and appeal to low probability events. I do not believe that low probability events are proper justification for the restriction and removal of an adult's ability to freely exercise their rights.

I'm sure that will be done as this is more common and we have a chance to study it. But that doesn't mean we stop thinking about it. We can look at it, look at who will be carrying, the possible problems. In doing so, we can make some judgements. And people are making such judgements:

Similar firearms measures have been proposed in about a dozen other states, but all face strong opposition, especially from college leaders.

Texas college students may soon be allowed to carry guns | Houston & Texas News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

There are reasons for this. repeating my own thoughts;

"There is no scenario where allowing concealed weapons on college campuses will do anything other than create a more dangerous environment for students, faculty, staff and visitors," Oklahoma Chancellor of Higher Education Glen Johnson said in January.

University of Texas President William Powers has opposed concealed handguns on campus, saying the mix of students, guns and campus parties is too volatile.

Those were from the same article.

It is a needless risk with fewer benefits than risk.

You might also consider this:

A House bill that would allow college students to carry guns on campus could make it harder for law enforcement agencies to effectively respond to a school shooting, according to McNeese State University’s police chief.

“If we go into a situation and there are several people with guns, we have to stop and address each one of those people,” Chief Cinnamon Salvador said Thursday.

“Every second we have to stop and spend with one of them to ascertain if they’re good or bad guys, the bad guy could still be in the building shooting people.”

McNeese police chief opposes bill allowing guns on campus (5/15) : Headline News

But for me, it's just such a needless risk, with no clear up side, I see as no less nonsensical as car surfing. It's just a bad idea, based on a faulty premise.

Ikari · Feb 25, 2011

Not so long ago (last semester), the Board of Governors tried to take away our ability to carry concealed on our campus. But if faced strong opposition, especially from college leaders.

You keep saying it's a needless risk, but you cannot demonstrate the risk. You cannot quantify the probabilities and tell me how much more above baseline, I'm in danger. If you can't do that, how do you think you have a proper argument for the removal of the exercise of a right? Free is dangerous, it is innately so. You cannot divorce danger from free. By choosing to be free we have already said that we are going to live with a certain level of danger. Yet you propose that the rights of adults be infringed upon based on your supposition and assumption alone. Sorry, but that's not something I'll be able to agree with.

All that in your quotes there make the SAME ASSUMPTIONS you are making. Drunk people with guns. But that's supposition, that's assumption; and that is not proper basis for the restriction of rights. As I have said, we have guns on our campus. We have bars on our campus. Where's the shootings? Been here since 1870, where's our drunken shootings? And of course cops don't want people to have guns, it makes their jobs harder; but that also is no excuse to curtail the exercise of rights and liberties.

In the end we are talking about an adult population, of whom we allow the full exercise of their rights. You cannot just say "I think this will make things more dangerous" without showing any evidence for it being more dangerous and expect to have made proper argument to restrict the rights of the individual. Once again, assumption and supposition do not make proper arguments to remove the exercise of a right from our law abiding, adult population.

Boo Radley · Feb 25, 2011

Ikari said:
Not so long ago (last semester), the Board of Governors tried to take away our ability to carry concealed on our campus. But if faced strong opposition, especially from college leaders.

You keep saying it's a needless risk, but you cannot demonstrate the risk. You cannot quantify the probabilities and tell me how much more above baseline, I'm in danger. If you can't do that, how do you think you have a proper argument for the removal of the exercise of a right? Free is dangerous, it is innately so. You cannot divorce danger from free. By choosing to be free we have already said that we are going to live with a certain level of danger. Yet you propose that the rights of adults be infringed upon based on your supposition and assumption alone. Sorry, but that's not something I'll be able to agree with.

All that in your quotes there make the SAME ASSUMPTIONS you are making. Drunk people with guns. But that's supposition, that's assumption; and that is not proper basis for the restriction of rights. As I have said, we have guns on our campus. We have bars on our campus. Where's the shootings? Been here since 1870, where's our drunken shootings? And of course cops don't want people to have guns, it makes their jobs harder; but that also is no excuse to curtail the exercise of rights and liberties.

In the end we are talking about an adult population, of whom we allow the full exercise of their rights. You cannot just say "I think this will make things more dangerous" without showing any evidence for it being more dangerous and expect to have made proper argument to restrict the rights of the individual. Once again, assumption and supposition do not make proper arguments to remove the exercise of a right from our law abiding, adult population.

It can't be quanitifed yet, as it hasn't been wide spread so no studies have been done. I'm sure in time more will be done, especially if more people start bringing guns to the classroom.

And yes, it is an assumption, but a reasonable assumption based on how this popuilation has handled their other adult responsibilities. Yes, they are allowed to drink, and do so less responsibilty than older more mature populations. Yes, they are allowed to drive, but do so less responsibily than older more mature populations. We than then logically predict that they will treat weapons less responsibily than older more mature populations. As i said earlier, at this point, I think it is a logic problem.

So, as there have been no studies on this specific issue, we cannot present numbers on it specifically. So, we have to look at how this population handles other adult responsibilities. I know no other way to try and tackle it. Looking at how they have behaved and handled those other responsibilities suggests they will be less responsible and make more mistakes. I think that is a reasonable conclusion.

Also, logically, it is fair to ask, what purpose can a weapon in the classroom serve? Not much. Students getting shot in the classroom is even rarer than accidents with hadn guns, by an overwhelming large number. As overwhelming guns have not been allowed in classrooms, we don't have much to count as accidents with them there. But a few years with them in the classroom may well change that.

But I see no reason to test it when I think we can see before hand the problems there will likely be.

Ikari · Feb 25, 2011

They are not reasonable assumptions as I have already demonstrated that your assumptions have broken down in at least one State. You keep saying these things on hearsay and supposition, but I offered you actual data. Data verses supposition; data wins.

These are adults, adults have their rights recognized. If you want to infringe upon that through the use of government force against our exercise of our rights, YOU NEED DATA! You cannot properly nor justly use force against our free exercise of our rights based on your feelings and assumptions. You keep saying "oh what value would a gun in a classroom have...not much". But that is again your ASSUMPTION. You ASSUME it can have no value, you make the claim without proof, without data, without reason. And I'm supposed to be ok with authorizing government force against the exercise of our rights based on your continued insistence upon assumption and supposition? Not bloody likely. If you want to use force against my rights, then you are going to have to have something a lot more solid than your assumptions.

Boo Radley · Feb 25, 2011

Ikari said:
They are not reasonable assumptions as I have already demonstrated that your assumptions have broken down in at least one State. You keep saying these things on hearsay and supposition, but I offered you actual data. Data verses supposition; data wins.

These are adults, adults have their rights recognized. If you want to infringe upon that through the use of government force against our exercise of our rights, YOU NEED DATA! You cannot properly nor justly use force against our free exercise of our rights based on your feelings and assumptions.

I don't think so. You haven't had the right that long yet. Not to mention your state would be but a small sample. the more states involved, further removed from rural America, and I think you will see more and more problems.

I also don't think is a rights violation. Courts will likely rule on that. But, rights are not allowed everywhere. rights are often resistricted in some areas, and rightly so.

Jerry · Feb 25, 2011

Boo Radley said:
More crime? I think I said more accidents. And I gave accident stats. It's like more young people driving cars means more driving accidents. Young folks have more accidents than mature drives on average. Same is likely with guns, for much the same reasons.

The average age of a collage student is 25, not 18.
In fact:

Data from the 2005 Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) shows that a student at a U.S. institution of higher education is almost as likely to be in her 30s, taking care of dependents and working full-time as she is to be 19, in a sorority, getting financial assistance from the parental unit and taking 15 credit hours a semester.

Feature Story: No Average Student: Community college students not your 'typical' undergrads, says College of Education survey

Boo Radley said:
Harvrd isn't making the claim you are. They are not saying more guns lower the crime rate.

........the burden
of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal
more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially
since they argue public policy ought to be based on
that mantra.149 To bear that burden would at the very least
require showing that a large number of nations with more
guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions
in criminal violence (or suicide).....

So, Boo Radley, where is your demonstration that more guns = more death?

Boo Radley said:
Actually, that's not what I said. I amde ajoke that you have no experience if you believe things contrary to what experience should have taught you. But whether a young person drinks on campus or off campus, the issue was one of maturity and not drinking.

That's an argument against gun ownership in general, though, not of guns on campus specifically. If you take issue with <25 y/o possessing a firearms due to maturity, that's fine, but you therefore must allow students >25 to carry on campus as maturity is no longer an issue.

Ikari · Feb 25, 2011

Boo Radley said:
I don't think so. You haven't had the right that long yet. Not to mention your state would be but a small sample. the more states involved, further removed from rural America, and I think you will see more and more problems.

I also don't think is a rights violation. Courts will likely rule on that. But, rights are not allowed everywhere. rights are often resistricted in some areas, and rightly so.

Of course you don't see it as a rights violation because you don't wish to see it as such. The individual has right to keep and bear arms, that right is not to be infringed upon. When you restrict where one can carry a gun, you infringe upon that right. Some of it can be seen as reasonable such as private property where the property owner doesn't want guns on it. However, for public land such as a public University, it's different. By preventing someone from bearing arms, you infringe upon that right to bear arms. If you wish to do so, you must have a valid reason. Yes, if there were more schools allowed concealed carry, we could have better aggregated statistics. However, what my example proves is the break down of your argument. You're saying that if we allow these adults (not kids) to exercise their rights, that there will be a significant increase in our safety concerns. But that's not the case in CO at all. We have had no school shootings on campuses which allow guns. Even though there are bars and even though guns can be brought onto campus. Heck, Fort Collins itself is open carry and people are allowed to carry in businesses and bars (you cannot drink if you're carrying though). We're not a high crime rate city, there's not a lot of shootings. Young people behind the wheel still present the largest probability of death to me.

And while rights can be restricted, sometimes even justly, it requires evidence and proof. Of which you have none. Nothing is not sufficient argument for the use of government force against the rights and liberties of the individual.

Jerry · Feb 25, 2011

Ikari said:
Of course you don't see it as a rights violation because you don't wish to see it as such. The individual has right to keep and bear arms, that right is not to be infringed upon. When you restrict where one can carry a gun, you infringe upon that right. Some of it can be seen as reasonable such as private property where the property owner doesn't want guns on it. However, for public land such as a public University, it's different. By preventing someone from bearing arms, you infringe upon that right to bear arms. If you wish to do so, you must have a valid reason. Yes, if there were more schools allowed concealed carry, we could have better aggregated statistics. However, what my example proves is the break down of your argument. You're saying that if we allow these adults (not kids) to exercise their rights, that there will be a significant increase in our safety concerns. But that's not the case in CO at all. We have had no school shootings on campuses which allow guns. Even though there are bars and even though guns can be brought onto campus. Heck, Fort Collins itself is open carry and people are allowed to carry in businesses and bars (you cannot drink if you're carrying though). We're not a high crime rate city, there's not a lot of shootings. Young people behind the wheel still present the largest probability of death to me.

And while rights can be restricted, sometimes even justly, it requires evidence and proof. Of which you have none. Nothing is not sufficient argument for the use of government force against the rights and liberties of the individual.

Let's recall that Columbine was a gun-free zone. As was Virginia Tech.