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

Texas poised to pass bill allowing guns on campus

The Barbarian said:
This is not something new, there is a city in GA. that has had a very similar law for quite some time now .

Kennesaw crime rates are less than half of US averages.

In 1982 Kennesaw passed this law



Now I remember your own "logical assumptions" concerning carrying a weapon on college campuses, I would think that there are some logical assumptions to be made in this case as well .

One thing that can be stated as fact, and cannot be debated, the law that told people that they had to have a gun in their house, did not raise crime rates.
Click to expand...

No, that would be quite different. You're making a different type of claim to begin with, that one thing is the cause of another. I make no such claim. So, you're claim falls under the causal relationship error and no different than those who give credit to the Brady bill. They are just as wrong in their assumptions as you are. Other factors not mentioned or known may be the factors that are making the difference.

Nor do I claim having a gun raises crime. I do wish folks would argue what is before them and not strawmen. More guns MIGHT lead to more accidents, but I see no evidence they would lead to more crime.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, that would be quite different. You're making a different type of claim to begin with, that one thing is the cause of another. I make no such claim. So, you're claim falls under the causal relationship error and no different than those who give credit to the Brady bill. They are just as wrong in their assumptions as you are. Other factors not mentioned or known may be the factors that are making the difference.

Nor do I claim having a gun raises crime. I do wish folks would argue what is before them and not strawmen. More guns MIGHT lead to more accidents, but I see no evidence they would lead to more crime.
Click to expand...

more guns might lead to more crime. That's still a true statement.
 
Ikari said:
OK, so what? People like you got all the good fireworks banned too. And it's good that you're not claiming that about cars, because having a car and driving one has the most impact on your life/death probabilities. So it cannot be insurance against injury. Guns don't even come close to that probability. I'm not really going to be concerned about it until it does.
Click to expand...

I admit fireworks annoy me, and don't go to see them, because if you've seen one, you've seen them all. ;) But I never did anything to limit fireworks.

And keep in mind, guns are not in everyday use like cars are. This is important. Do you really believe if more people had guns there wouldn't be an increase in accidents?

So, to recap, guns are not an insurance policy that protects us from injury. We can agree on that, right?
 
Ikari said:
more guns might lead to more crime. That's still a true statement.
Click to expand...

If you say so, but not my claim, nor my concern. In my decade of working the ambulance, I never picked up someone shot during a crime, but did pick up many accidents. For me, accidents are more the concern.
 
Boo Radley said:
If you say so, but not my claim, nor my concern. In my decade of working the ambulance, I never picked up someone shot during a crime, but did pick up many accidents. For me, accidents are more the concern.
Click to expand...



Firearms (Total)*

Suicides 16,586
Homicides 10,801
Accidents 776

Source GOA fact sheet.





Your story seems highly unlikley.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Firearms (Total)*

Suicides 16,586
Homicides 10,801
Accidents 776

Source GOA fact sheet.





Your story seems highly unlikley.
Click to expand...

I'm sure gun owners are completely objective; however, lets see what some others say:

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.[4]

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

The rate for firearm-related deaths among children in the United States (1.66) was 2.7-fold greater than that in the country with the next highest rate (Finland, 0.62) (Figure_1). Except for rates for firearm-related suicide in Northern Ireland and firearm-related fatalities of unknown intent in Austria, Belgium, and Israel, rates for all types of firearm-related deaths were higher in the United States than in the other countries. However, among all other countries, the impact of firearm-related deaths varied substantially. For example, five countries, including three of the four countries in Asia, reported no firearm-related deaths among children. In comparison, firearms were the primary cause of homicide in Finland, Israel, Australia, Italy, Germany, and England and Wales. Five countries (Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, and Taiwan) reported only unintentional firearm-related deaths.

Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries

But research shows that surprisingly often, gun owners use the weapons on themselves.

Read more: Gun owners more often kill themselves than others - The Denver Post Gun owners more often kill themselves than others - The Denver Post
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: Terms of Use - The Denver Post
 
accidents_nonfatal.jpg


Gun Control


In 2007, there were roughly 15,698 emergency room visits for non-fatal firearm accidents,[123] constituting 0.05% of 27.7 million emergency room visits for non-fatal accidents that year.[124]



* These emergency room visits for non-fatal firearm accidents resulted in 5,045 hospitalizations,[125] constituting 0.4% of 1.4 million non-fatal accident hospitalizations that year.[126]





You claim you saw more gun accidents than homicide or aggravated assaults....


I don't believe you.




Your spinning of facts won't change this. :shrug:


There are under 1000 kids killed by accidental gun shots.... Buckets of water are far more dangerous. But lets get back to your claim.


How many total firearms accidents did you roll out on? :roll:
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
I admit fireworks annoy me, and don't go to see them, because if you've seen one, you've seen them all. ;) But I never did anything to limit fireworks.
Click to expand...

No, but it's the attitude which took them away. People saying "oh this or that may happen. These are unnecessary risks, we have to protect the children" blah blah blah crap. The same type of overreacting tripe you've been spewing this entire thread. Every once is awhile a kid looses a finger. But that teaches the lesson of not holding onto the M-80 after you light it (you can't get M-80's anymore). Every once in awhile, someone gets popped in they eye with a bottle rocket (wear goggles when you have a bottle rocket war). **** happens. But because we have all this overconcern, all this overreaction, all this loss of logic and rationale; we've come to a place where all we can do is restrict. You can't have X because of Y you can't do A because of B. The only result is that over time we become less free, even less free in our forms of entertainment. You know how much trouble you get into these days for a 2-L bottle, a little Drain-O and a small amount of aluminum foil? Man, they throw your ass in jail for that now adays.

I think it's important for us to understand the consequences of our actions and the aggregated effects our overreaching attitudes can take us these days. The goal is more freedom; not less.

Boo Radley said:
And keep in mind, guns are not in everyday use like cars are. This is important. Do you really believe if more people had guns there wouldn't be an increase in accidents?
Click to expand...

Guns are in everyday use. Quite often infact. And not just the military or police; lots of regular folk use lots of varying guns every single day.

Boo Radley said:
So, to recap, guns are not an insurance policy that protects us from injury. We can agree on that, right?
Click to expand...

Not all injury, no. But they can give us defense against aggressive acts against our rights and liberties.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
accidents_nonfatal.jpg


Gun Control


In 2007, there were roughly 15,698 emergency room visits for non-fatal firearm accidents,[123] constituting 0.05% of 27.7 million emergency room visits for non-fatal accidents that year.[124]



* These emergency room visits for non-fatal firearm accidents resulted in 5,045 hospitalizations,[125] constituting 0.4% of 1.4 million non-fatal accident hospitalizations that year.[126]





You claim you saw more gun accidents than homicide or aggravated assaults....


I don't believe you.




Your spinning of facts won't change this. :shrug:


There are under 1000 kids killed by accidental gun shots.... Buckets of water are far more dangerous. But lets get back to your claim.


How many total firearms accidents did you roll out on? :roll:
Click to expand...

I already told him gravity takes more than accidental shootings. It apparently doesn't matter. All these things which are higher risks in my life for injury/death don't matter. I have to apparently be worried about the incredibly small percentage of students who would carry concealed on a campus if they choose to. I'm not sure why at this point as it will functionally have no effect on any real world dynamic. But that's what I'm apparently supposed to be worried about so much so that I'd excuse government force against the free exercise of a right.
 
Ikari said:
I already told him gravity takes more than accidental shootings. It apparently doesn't matter. All these things which are higher risks in my life for injury/death don't matter. I have to apparently be worried about the incredibly small percentage of students who would carry concealed on a campus if they choose to. I'm not sure why at this point as it will functionally have no effect on any real world dynamic. But that's what I'm apparently supposed to be worried about so much so that I'd excuse government force against the free exercise of a right.
Click to expand...



like you said, not worth the time.....
 
Ikari said:
No, but it's the attitude which took them away. I think it's important for us to understand the consequences of our actions and the aggregated effects our overreaching attitudes can take us these days. The goal is more freedom; not less.
Click to expand...

I don't buy that. Reasonable thought and actions are not an infringment of freedom.

As to you and Rev's constant misreading of what is being said, it does not matter at all if somethings are a greater or lesser risk. It has to do with needless risk. Doing something with risk that is needed is one thing. Doing something that isn't is another. Can't do a thing about gravity. Cars are a needed part of life today, much like guns were back in the day. But there is no need for a gun at school, and as such a needless risk. A stupid risk.
Guns are in everyday use. Quite often infact. And not just the military or police; lots of regular folk use lots of varying guns every single day.
Click to expand...

No, not that often. Most people live just fine witho out them.

Not all injury, no. But they can give us defense against aggressive acts against our rights and liberties.
Click to expand...

Can't defend yourself without one, you're nto likely to do so with one. it is after all just a tool and not capable of replacing a good mind.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't buy that. Reasonable thought and actions are not an infringment of freedom.

As to you and Rev's constant misreading of what is being said, it does not matter at all if somethings are a greater or lesser risk. It has to do with needless risk. Doing something with risk that is needed is one thing. Doing something that isn't is another. Can't do a thing about gravity. Cars are a needed part of life today, much like guns were back in the day. But there is no need for a gun at school, and as such a needless risk. A stupid risk.


No, not that often. Most people live just fine witho out them.



Can't defend yourself without one, you're nto likely to do so with one. it is after all just a tool and not capable of replacing a good mind.
Click to expand...


Tell that to the victims of columbine, Vtech, etc...


btw you never addressed my question. As an administrator, since you won't allow students to protect themselves, are you then responsible if a gunman starts shooting up your campus?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Tell that to the victims of columbine, Vtech, etc...


btw you never addressed my question. As an administrator, since you won't allow students to protect themselves, are you then responsible if a gunman starts shooting up your campus?
Click to expand...

Well, professionals in the field have, as they ahve stated that armed students would likely make things worse and not save anyone.

It seems like a stupid question, but yes, reasonable precautions have been taken, and a plan is in place, worked out by experts and the police as the best and safest way to tackle the problem. Fear can make anyone an idiot. It is best to tackle these thigns logically and not out of fear.
 
Boo Radley said:
Well, professionals in the field have, as they ahve stated that armed students would likely make things worse and not save anyone.
Click to expand...


Likely not save anyone?

please link to evidence of this. thanks.


It seems like a stupid question, but yes, reasonable precautions have been taken, and a plan is in place, worked out by experts and the police as the best and safest way to tackle the problem. Fear can make anyone an idiot. It is best to tackle these thigns logically and not out of fear.
Click to expand...


Any "idiot" can see that not having a gun in a gun fight, is well "idiotic".....


If it's a stupid question, then why have "Campus police", and other armed folks, that when seconds count are only minutes away. :shrug:
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Likely not save anyone?

please link to evidence of this. thanks.
Click to expand...

Do notice the word likely. But here:

Campus-safety officials echo Meadows's concerns, saying they'd rather deal with a single shooter than a full-blown gun battle. "There's no credible evidence to suggest allowing students to carry concealed weapons makes campuses safer," says Christopher Blake, a director at the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators. "We're very much opposed to these initiatives." Gun-control advocates also point to research suggesting student gun owners are more likely to binge-drink and use illegal drugs. "It's a recipe for disaster," says Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "The more guns you bring on to campus, the more gun violence you're going to have."

Should Students Be Allowed to Carry Guns? - Newsweek

Reason #3. Arming Students Would Not Deter the Rare Campus Shooting

Suicidal attackers cannot be deterred. The perpetrators of mass shootings are nearly always suicidal, and end up taking their own lives at the end of their rampages. Armed students would likely become the first targets of any suicidal attackers, who can prepare for such an attack by maximizing their firepower. For example, a crazed gunman who attacked a city council outside St. Louis, Missouri, in March 2008, first shot and killed two armed police officers before continuing his rampage. He even used one of the officer's guns in furthering his attack.

Keep Guns Off Campus - Campaign to keep our Colleges and Universities Safer and Gun Free

What a misguided idea: Maybe another student with a gun "could have stopped Seung-hui Cho's rampage" at Virginia Tech, says the Los Angeles Times in an editorial. But guns aren't just "tools of self-defense;" they are "also tools of suicide, accidental shootings, intimidation, and murder." Colleges are rife with drug abuse, "romantic entanglements," and academic pressure. "Adding firearms to this volatile mix is a spectacularly bad idea."

Should college kids in Texas be armed on campus? - The Week

Any "idiot" can see that not having a gun in a gun fight, is well "idiotic".....


If it's a stupid question, then why have "Campus police", and other armed folks, that when seconds count are only minutes away. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, there are no gun fights at school to come to, at elast not until too many are amred. ;)
 
So from your highly biased sources, college kids are suicidal drug addicts bent on killing people, and therefore should not be armed if they so chose to be...


again, when the shooting starts, whom should be responsible for students safety? Clearly you don't want the student, so you, should be held both legally and financially responsible for your choices in keeping students defensless based on the view you hold that students are suicidal drug addicted maniacs..

and you are a school administrator? :shock:
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
So from your highly biased sources, college kids are suicidal drug addicts bent on killing people, and therefore should not be armed if they so chose to be...


again, when the shooting starts, whom should be responsible for students safety? Clearly you don't want the student, so you, should be held both legally and financially responsible for your choices in keeping students defensless based on the view you hold that students are suicidal drug addicted maniacs..

and you are a school administrator? :shock:
Click to expand...

First, none of them said that. Extreme hyperbole doesn't really help you.

And remember, the school is held just as legally responsible when armed students accidently shoot each other, or get in a gun fight. INcreasing the odds, which are extremely rare right now, doesn't help schools with their liability. They ahve more to fear concerning liability if more people are armed.
 
Boo Radley said:
First, none of them said that. Extreme hyperbole doesn't really help you.
Click to expand...


Oh it only helps you. This is where I start to get bored with your boo radley shuffle.


And remember, the school is held just as legally responsible when armed students accidently shoot each other, or get in a gun fight. INcreasing the odds, which are extremely rare right now, doesn't help schools with their liability. They ahve more to fear concerning liability if more people are armed.
Click to expand...


there are over 40 million guns right now in the US. you would need to show that you would be increasing the odds, when it is clear, legally armed populaces show no such rise as you claim.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Oh it only helps you. This is where I start to get bored with your boo radley shuffle.





there are over 40 million guns right now in the US. you would need to show that you would be increasing the odds, when it is clear, legally armed populaces show no such rise as you claim.
Click to expand...

Actually there are more than 40 million guns in the US. Some websites do estimate that 1 in 4 Americans own a firearm.
U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people | Reuters
U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies.
 
Last edited:
ReverendHellh0und said:
Oh it only helps you. This is where I start to get bored with your boo radley shuffle.
Click to expand...

We know the truth, you just don't have a valid argument. ;)

there are over 40 million guns right now in the US. you would need to show that you would be increasing the odds, when it is clear, legally armed populaces show no such rise as you claim.
Click to expand...

For the most part, those guns are not on campus. It is really basic logic that more of nearly anything risky increases the risk. It's a simple logic problem.
 
Boo Radley said:
We know the truth, you just don't have a valid argument. ;)
Click to expand...


Who's we?



For the most part, those guns are not on campus. It is really basic logic that more of nearly anything risky increases the risk. It's a simple logic problem.
Click to expand...



again, with 40 million guns in the US, and CCW legal states having less gunb crime, your logic once again, is illogic based on silly hoplophobia..... oh and your distaste and distrust of your own students.
 
Boo Radley said:
I think I've given you several reasons. Students tend to be immature. Few know their tool well. There is no purpose for it in school. It's asking for trouble. Accidents happen at home with them and could happen at school. It provides serious liability issues for schools. And in general, it's just a stupid idea. Kind of like car sufering or NCLB.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about? :lol:
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Who's we?
Click to expand...

Any unbiased person reading. ;)





again, with 40 million guns in the US, and CCW legal states having less gunb crime, your logic once again, is illogic based on silly hoplophobia..... oh and your distaste and distrust of your own students.
Click to expand...

You have seen the numbers right? A fair number of people do accidently shoot themselves, and commit suicde, together showing a good number hurting themselves with guns. So, you're not really thinking your comment through at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom