• 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

I'm all for the right to bear arms...I'm not exactly ringing the bell on the bandwagon for this law...I don't oppose it, necessarily, but I wouldn't have e-mailed my rep complaining if he had voted "no", either.
 
Boo Radley said:
How do you get statisitics? You do realize we must first have this ocme to past before we can get statisitics, right? You're as bright as anyone I've read on these forms, but you must understand this. So as we have nothing that is exactly like this, we can only look at what we do have stats on.
Click to expand...

There are universities which allow guns on campus. Go look up the number of school shootings at those universities compared to the universities which do not allow guns. That is how you build statistics. There is data out there; it just doesn't say what you'd like it to say.

Boo Radley said:
Now, we do have and they have been presented stats showing that young people have a greater tendency to make mistakes. Ar eoften mor ecareless. Make poor decisions. We also have law enforement making their cases for why it is a bad idea. We can agree or disagree, but they are making a case. Statistic do show that people as as likely to shoot themselves as anyone else with a gun. And while more people die of car accidents (a meaningless statistics), more people drive and there is greater need for transportation.
Click to expand...

People do make mistakes, some act carelessly. But that is going to happen, it's a side effect of freedom. Car accidents are not a meaningless statistic. In fact, it's a benchmark. If you can't approach that probability; then I'm not going to be too concerned about it. As it stands, Universities which do allow guns have had NO MORE incidents of gun violence than the outlying neighborhood and other universities.

Boo Radley said:
As for adult, 21 year olds are considered adults. I believe information was presented that showed the brain didn't fully develp until the late 20's. So, one can be an "adult" and still be immature and with a brain not fully developed.
Click to expand...

18 is adult, and while the brain doesn't reach peak operation then; it by no means indicates that we should restrict the rights of those people further.

Boo Radley said:
And your campus is not a large enough sample. Frankly, Colorado as a state will be nothing like Florida, or New York or California. Larger cities and population areas are actually quite different than rural areas.
Click to expand...

It may not be, but in all your appeal to authority, I've actually given a number. A far cry greater than what you've presented which is nothing more than supposition and appeal to authority.
 
DashingAmerican said:
It's always a non-factor until it is a factor, eh?
Click to expand...

It's not a likely scenario. It could happen, and I ain't gonna stop someone from defending themselves. I just don't buy into the whole "we'll all be saved from mass shootings if students had guns" argument.
 
Boo Radley said:
I believe they talk about a study. Right? Believe it or not, but studies are important to the professionals in question. That's why they look at them.
Click to expand...

Did you fail to notice the flawed methodology of the study. A person is shown a single photograph for a few seconds, no audio, no interaction, just a single frozen image and they have to make a judgement call. Nothing EVER goes down like this in the real world. There is always motion and there is always action, and THAT is how you judge intent. The participants did not even seem to be actual gun owners, who might take time to familiarize themselves with the deadly force laws in their state, but rather were apparently college age people without any mentioned firearms background. Flawed.

It's beside the point that the whole premise of the study seemed to be the police saying, "Hey, yeah, we sometimes shoot innocent people, but our job is HARD, man! Look, you can't even do it right either, so cut us a break."
 
theangryamerican said:
Did you fail to notice the flawed methodology of the study. A person is shown a single photograph for a few seconds, no audio, no interaction, just a single frozen image and they have to make a judgement call. Nothing EVER goes down like this in the real world. There is always motion and there is always action, and THAT is how you judge intent. The participants did not even seem to be actual gun owners, who might take time to familiarize themselves with the deadly force laws in their state, but rather were apparently college age people without any mentioned firearms background. Flawed.

It's beside the point that the whole premise of the study seemed to be the police saying, "Hey, yeah, we sometimes shoot innocent people, but our job is HARD, man! Look, you can't even do it right either, so cut us a break."
Click to expand...

Seems to me it would be pretty simple:

1. When they're in your home with ill intent (robbery, rape, etc) and have a weapon of their own.
2. When they're physically threatening or attacking you without provocation (mugging, rape) outside of the home, weapon or not.
3. In the act of defending your family or property.

Note: all for the state of Texas...
 
Ikari said:
There are universities which allow guns on campus. Go look up the number of school shootings at those universities compared to the universities which do not allow guns. That is how you build statistics. There is data out there; it just doesn't say what you'd like it to say.
Click to expand...

BY all means, link such data. I would love to examime it.


People do make mistakes, some act carelessly. But that is going to happen, it's a side effect of freedom. Car accidents are not a meaningless statistic. In fact, it's a benchmark. If you can't approach that probability; then I'm not going to be too concerned about it. As it stands, Universities which do allow guns have had NO MORE incidents of gun violence than the outlying neighborhood and other universities.
Click to expand...

it is meaningless in this dicussion. More people drive, so this means there will be more accidents. Also, there is a greater need. We accept risks with need. As once there was a real need for weapons. We lived with the risk. In the classroom, there is no such need.

18 is adult, and while the brain doesn't reach peak operation then; it by no means indicates that we should restrict the rights of those people further.
Click to expand...

I would hope we'd go with 21, but 18 is worse. The point is, the less developed, the more likley to make reasoing errors, such to less than sound thinking. We see this is young people regularly.

It may not be, but in all your appeal to authority, I've actually given a number. A far cry greater than what you've presented which is nothing more than supposition and appeal to authority.
Click to expand...

I look at Colorado once during our discussions. It's too limited, too removed. As I said, and I think you understand, it is too small a smaple. But what appeal to authority have I used? I have tried using reasoing.
 
theangryamerican said:
Did you fail to notice the flawed methodology of the study. A person is shown a single photograph for a few seconds, no audio, no interaction, just a single frozen image and they have to make a judgement call. Nothing EVER goes down like this in the real world. There is always motion and there is always action, and THAT is how you judge intent. The participants did not even seem to be actual gun owners, who might take time to familiarize themselves with the deadly force laws in their state, but rather were apparently college age people without any mentioned firearms background. Flawed.

It's beside the point that the whole premise of the study seemed to be the police saying, "Hey, yeah, we sometimes shoot innocent people, but our job is HARD, man! Look, you can't even do it right either, so cut us a break."
Click to expand...

What's the flaw? Aren't this decisions made rather quickly?

And no, the point was to show that training helps. No one sugests mistakes can be removed completely. But you improve the odds by having better training.
 
Boo Radley said:
What's the flaw? Aren't this decisions made rather quickly?

And no, the point was to show that training helps. No one sugests mistakes can be removed completely. But you improve the odds by having better training.
Click to expand...


Seriously? You asked what the flaw was after I just explained it?
A person is shown a single photograph for a few seconds, no audio, no interaction, just a single frozen image and they have to make a judgement call. Nothing EVER goes down like this in the real world. There is always motion and there is always action, and THAT is how you judge intent. The participants did not even seem to be actual gun owners, who might take time to familiarize themselves with the deadly force laws in their state, but rather were apparently college age people without any mentioned firearms background. Flawed.
Click to expand...

Would you like it broken down into bullet points (pun intended) for easier reading? The goal of the study was to make Law Enforcement not look so bad for their accidental shootings.
"this research should make civilians more sympathetic to officers who mistakenly shoot unarmed subjects under high-stress, real-world conditions.
Click to expand...

Yes, things happen fast, very fast, but that's the crux of the problem, things ARE happening. A static situation severely limits your situational awareness. It's a lousy study.
 
Last edited:
theangryamerican said:
Seriously? You asked what the flaw was after I just explained it?


Would you like it broken down into bullet points (pun intended) for easier reading? The goal of the study was to make Law Enforcement not look so bad for their accidental shootings. Yes, things happen fast, very fast, but that's the crux of the problem, things ARE happening. A static situation severely limits your situational awareness.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced that is a flaw. These things happen quickly and under stress. This seems quite appropriate to me.

And your interpretation is subjective and not one I agree with. I gave you an alternative reading. And no, the crux of the problem is making that decission fast. This is also in keeping with how it is usually studied.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm not convinced that is a flaw. These things happen quickly and under stress. This seems quite appropriate to me.

And your interpretation is subjective and not one I agree with. I gave you an alternative reading. And no, the crux of the problem is making that decission fast. This is also in keeping with how it is usually studied.
Click to expand...

For a test like this to work it would need to represent a real life situation. In real life, you aren't given a 2D flash of an individual. In real life, the situation plays out. Either you're home and somebody is trying to break in, or you're in a parking lot being followed, or you're carjacked or mugged. If you're conceal-carrying, which is how most would carry in the general public, you take countless hours of classes which specifically state that you should be on guard, but not standing there, safety off, finger on the trigger 24 hours a day.

Flashing photographs in front of me and telling me to decide whether to shoot or not would probably result in a lot of no-shots. I can't make a decision in 2 seconds and in real life you usually won't have to. Put the shooter in a VR environment with a real-life scenario and test them on reactions. This test was just silly.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm not convinced that is a flaw. These things happen quickly and under stress. This seems quite appropriate to me.

And your interpretation is subjective and not one I agree with. I gave you an alternative reading. And no, the crux of the problem is making that decission fast. This is also in keeping with how it is usually studied.
Click to expand...

Actually, most shoot/don't shoot training is conducted in a shoothouse, you know, where the scenario is moving. How is trying to assess a dynamic situation from a static position NOT a flaw? In each of those photos, you'd have multitudes of additional sensory input in the real world that the photo just doesn't convey.

My interpretation is not at all subjective, I provided a direct quote from the article that supported what I said. However, I'm not surprised that you don't agree and, frankly, I don't expect you to. It's your debate style to stand firm in your floundering opinion as the evidence against your position cascades around you. :2razz:
 
theangryamerican said:
Bravo for one less "Defenseless Victim Zone" in this country.

Texas Senate approves guns in college classrooms - CBS News

Edit: The nigh hysterical comments on the article are pure gold... "OMG, BLOOD in the streets!!"
Click to expand...

I assume it's the way I grew up, but I cannot understand how people would feel safer with guns allowed on campus. I get that if some school shooter came in to a classroom, other students could take him down, but then again, because school shootings seem to happen so quickly it seems more likely that without police training, many student shooters would likely get shot.

The idea of a bunch of people with guns next to me and behind me in class is not something that would have made me comfortable in college. Like I said though, I didn't grow up around guns and have rarely been around them.
 
Boo Radley said:
You do realize we must first have this ocme to past before we can get statisitics, right?
Click to expand...

Ar eoften mor ecareless.
Click to expand...

Statistic do show that people as as likely to shoot themselves as anyone else with a gun.
Click to expand...

(a meaningless statistics)
Click to expand...

Maddess for the novice shooter
Click to expand...

so i though a little preemption might avoid this coming up.
Click to expand...

you'll find links to law enforcement across the contry opposing such laws.
Click to expand...

It reflects your view, bis if you will.
Click to expand...

Like most who claim bias what you really want is for the media to biased
Click to expand...

Because we worry more about the nut than we do the saving the saving.
Click to expand...

You wnat your beliefs highlighten, given more hearing.
Click to expand...

The point is, the less developed, the more likley to make reasoing errors, such to less than sound thinking.
Click to expand...

We see this is young people regularly.
Click to expand...

I look at Colorado once during our discussions.
Click to expand...

I have tried using reasoing.
Click to expand...

Aren't this decisions made rather quickly?
Click to expand...

No one sugests mistakes can be removed completely.
Click to expand...

the crux of the problem is making that decission fast.
Click to expand...

dept chair, huh?

and how IS detroit this time of year?
 
theangryamerican said:
Actually, most shoot/don't shoot training is conducted in a shoothouse, you know, where the scenario is moving. How is trying to assess a dynamic situation from a static position NOT a flaw? In each of those photos, you'd have multitudes of additional sensory input in the real world that the photo just doesn't convey.

My interpretation is not at all subjective, I provided a direct quote from the article that supported what I said. However, I'm not surprised that you don't agree and, frankly, I don't expect you to. It's your debate style to stand firm in your floundering opinion as the evidence against your position cascades around you. :2razz:
Click to expand...

I'm unsure what quote you posted that supports your reading. I looked back and don't see it.

As for my style? Not sure, but your interpretation is subjective, as is mine. But the issue at hand is making a judgment, quickly. I'll do some more investigation, but you have not convinced me. I frankly don't see much effort on your part to even try. I suppose you think I should just accept what you write?
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm unsure what quote you posted that supports your reading. I looked back and don't see it.

As for my style? Not sure, but your interpretation is subjective, as is mine. But the issue at hand is making a judgment, quickly. I'll do some more investigation, but you have not convinced me. I frankly don't see much effort on your part to even try. I suppose you think I should just accept what you write?
Click to expand...

Hell, I'm still waiting for you prove that being a police officer makes you a better shooter, like you claimed several pages ago. Your "study" was a weak attempt, but I'll continue to wait patiently for you to prove your assertion.


Oh, by the way, here's the quote from the article you posted that I mentioned before:
"this research should make civilians more sympathetic to officers who mistakenly shoot unarmed subjects under high-stress, real-world conditions.
Click to expand...
Nothing to do with gun safety, everything to do with justifying bad shoots. Still want to defend the flawed study?
 
If I were king for a day, I'd allow everyone to carry 100% of the time. An armed society being a polite society and all of that, but the world doesn't work like that.
 
theangryamerican said:
Hell, I'm still waiting for you prove that being a police officer makes you a better shooter, like you claimed several pages ago. Your "study" was a weak attempt, but I'll continue to wait patiently for you to prove your assertion
Click to expand...

the problem is that's not what I said. I said the training makes you better at making decisions and handling the chaos.


Oh, by the way, here's the quote from the article you posted that I mentioned before:
Nothing to do with gun safety, everything to do with justifying bad shoots. Still want to defend the flawed study?
Click to expand...

I'll have to find that quote as it makes no sense to me. I don't even see how you think it helps you.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'll have to find that quote
Click to expand...

do that

by the way, when is the last time you pasted a link?

not counting whitehouse.gov or the sydney morning herald, that is?

read much?
 
Boo Radley said:
the problem is that's not what I said. I said the training makes you better at making decisions and handling the chaos.
Click to expand...

The problem is, you no longer remember what you said. Several pages in, when examples of armed citizens stopping shooters were provided you made the assertion that Jeanne Assam was able to stop the shooter at New Life because she was:

Let's not forget this either:

The former security guard . . . ex-Minneapolis police officer.


Now, as I talk to law enforement folks, it's risky for some trained well. Maddess for the novice shooter. More likely to miss and hit others.
Click to expand...

Right THERE you made the claim that people who weren’t trained as law enforcement were more likely to miss and hit others. I asked you to prove it and you’ve done nothing but danced around the topic and tried to deflect with talk about reaction speed. It was accuracy that stopped Matthew Murray.

Boo Radley said:
I'll have to find that quote as it makes no sense to me. I don't even see how you think it helps you.
Click to expand...

*sigh* I’ll try to spell this out carefully for you. I said that:

It's beside the point that the whole premise of the study seemed to be the police saying, "Hey, yeah, we sometimes shoot innocent people, but our job is HARD, man! Look, you can't even do it right either, so cut us a break."
Click to expand...

To which you replied:

no, the point was to show that training helps. No one sugests mistakes can be removed completely. But you improve the odds by having better training.
Click to expand...

Finally, I said:

The goal of the study was to make Law Enforcement not look so bad for their accidental shootings.
Click to expand...

At this point, I provided the quote directly from your article to support my statement. I’m really not sure why you’re having trouble following this, but the point was that the flawed study had absolutely zero to do with arming citizens and everything to do with justifying already existing police procedure.
 
ricksfolly said:
Sick, sick, wide-spread paranoia... No, babee, they're not all out to get you.

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

Of course they're not out to get me. I make a point of not looking like a victim. If you don't feel the obligation to protect yourself or your family, that's certainly your prerogative. By all means, don't let someone like me get between you and the baddies out there, kiddo.
 
theangryamerican said:
The problem is, you no longer remember what you said. Several pages in, when examples of armed citizens stopping shooters were provided you made the assertion that Jeanne Assam was able to stop the shooter at New Life because she was:



Right THERE you made the claim that people who weren’t trained as law enforcement were more likely to miss and hit others. I asked you to prove it and you’ve done nothing but danced around the topic and tried to deflect with talk about reaction speed. It was accuracy that stopped Matthew Murray.
Click to expand...

Yes, but not because of accuracy. We continued this for further clarification, remember. Many can shoot a target. It is the decision making and the ability to handle the chaos that is at question. I know many fine shots who I would not trust in a crisis.

*sigh* I’ll try to spell this out carefully for you. I said that:



To which you replied:



Finally, I said:



At this point, I provided the quote directly from your article to support my statement. I’m really not sure why you’re having trouble following this, but the point was that the flawed study had absolutely zero to do with arming citizens and everything to do with justifying already existing police procedure.
Click to expand...

I have found no such quote. (This quote: Nothing to do with gun safety, everything to do with justifying bad shoots.)

I will say this, a study cna have more than one purpose. I don't doubt that showing this is difficult to civilians wouldn't hold some value. But, it shows that they do make poorer decisions than trained personal. I would expect this. I would think anyone would expect this.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Yes, but not because of accuracy. We continued this for further clarification, remember. Many can shoot a target. It is the decision making and the ability to handle the chaos that is at question. I know many fine shots who I would not trust in a crisis.



I have found no such quote. (This quote: Nothing to do with gun safety, everything to do with justifying bad shoots.)

I will say this, a study cna have more than one purpose. I don't doubt that showing this is difficult to civilians wouldn't hold some value. But, it shows that they do make poorer decisions than trained personal. I would expect this. I would think anyone would expect this.
Click to expand...

Again, the study is so very flawed. They picked people that had apparently ZERO mentionable firearms experience and put them against police officers who had been trained to handle such situations. Of-flippin-course, people who have no experience with a gun make poor judgement calls about who to shoot. Now... what about those who have taken the steps to get carry permits, who have read their states laws, who understand the responsibility of carrying a gun every day AND who can put rounds on target when needed? You didn't clarify anything, you simply moved the goal posts when asked to prove that police are more accurate shooters than citizens.
 
theangryamerican said:
Again, the study is so very flawed. They picked people that had apparently ZERO mentionable firearms experience and put them against police officers who had been trained to handle such situations. Of-flippin-course, people who have no experience with a gun make poor judgement calls about who to shoot. Now... what about those who have taken the steps to get carry permits, who have read their states laws, who understand the responsibility of carrying a gun every day AND who can put rounds on target when needed? You didn't clarify anything, you simply moved the goal posts when asked to prove that police are more accurate shooters than citizens.
Click to expand...

Don't you think in schools across the country we will have people with next to zero training? I grew up in the city and I have know a lot folks with guns with zero training.

And this is the point. We are likley to have people in these situations armed but with no real training, making decisions, likely poor ones.

And no, clarification is not equal to moving the goal posts. If you seek to understand, clarification is sometimes needed. I never meant to suggest they were poor shots. That was never my point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom