Concealed weapons: good/bad?

[Explicit]

Since you deleted my post in the topic you created (which I can understand why), I might as well raise this up here (again):

http://dailycrazed.net/personal/saxd45.jpg

CrAz3D, why is it that you post all these links of shootings, and then go out and get a gun?

I understand that it's a right to be able to own firearms, but I don't see why the articles you've posted on in the past hasn't deterred you from getting one.

Well, aside from it being fun and me wanting to get my CHL (concealed handgun license) ... those articles only encourage me in being proactive about being safe.

Fun? I'll let that one slide.

Wouldn't not owning a gun _at all_ be an even more practical approach to being proactive about safety?

For one, you wouldn't have access to it, and neither would anyone else. Second, you wouldn't have to be proactive about safety to begin with, as the object of said activity is removed; you can't practice being safe with something you don't have access to!

Or does this just come down to you wanting to have a weapon accessible at all times, if not for safety, then at the very least, for what you said: "... fun."

You've already acknowledged this:

Someone else pointed one out to me.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

So?

[Sidoh]

Since you deleted my post in the topic you created (which I can understand why), I might as well raise this up here (again):

*sigh*.  I wish he wouldn't have deleted my posts either.  Those were good points, I thought.

[CrAz3D]

If it goes off topic again I'll just move it ... but I just wanted that thread to be on topic

[Explicit]

Since you deleted my post in the topic you created (which I can understand why), I might as well raise this up here (again):

*sigh*.  I wish he wouldn't have deleted my posts either.  Those were good points, I thought.

If it goes off topic again I'll just move it ... but I just wanted that thread to be on topic

Then do so, as it is your thread, and I can respect that. But it doesn't change the fact that I'm still waiting for your response to my post above.

How do you expect people to take you seriously when you don't even respond to valid points that are raised? I'm treating you as an equal as much as I possibly can, but you're making the process more difficult than it needs to be.

[CrAz3D]

Guns aren't dangerous, it's a tool.  That's my point, people are dangerous.  And when you limit the use of that tool to only one side of the "fight" the other side is helpless.

[Warrior]

Guns aren't dangerous, it's a tool.  That's my point, people are dangerous.  And when you limit the use of that tool to only one side of the "fight" the other side is helpless.

This is why we have law enforcement (who are armed), and the federal government providing support via things like the National Guard.

Guns don't kill people, People with guns kill people. So take the fucking guns away from the people. Enough said.

[Sidoh]

Guns don't kill people, People with guns kill people. So take the fucking guns away from the people. Enough said.

Hahahaha.  I was going to try to say that in a more uh... academic way, but I don't think I've seen a more eloquent wording for that statement.

[CrAz3D]

Then you only have criminals with guns.  The Brits banned handguns, what did they get?  WAY more gun crimes.  You can't prevent EVERYONE from having guns.  You can only make it more illegal for law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

Police can't respond as fast as an armed citizen.  An armed student could've saved lives at VA Tech or NIU.

[Sidoh]

WAY more gun crimes. 

Evidence.  The numbers I've seen suggest the opposite by a huge margin.

[Warrior]

Then you only have criminals with guns.  The Brits banned handguns, what did they get?  WAY more gun crimes.  You can't prevent EVERYONE from having guns.  You can only make it more illegal for law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

Police can't respond as fast as an armed citizen.  An armed student could've saved lives at VA Tech or NIU.

Same "Armed" citizen could also have been the Virginia Tech shooter.
You seem to think that upon seeing an armed man everyone will run to the closet, grab their double barreled shot gun, and blow his shit apart. Do you think people will carry it on them at all times, do you think the amount of good it may potentially do will outweigh the bad that it's doing?

It's the insane fucks who buy the guns who commit the atrocities. Look at a lot of murders, where did the shooter get the gun? They on more than a handful of occasions have traced it back to the gun store which he bought the gun in.

It's barbaric to expect citizens to arm themselves and form into an angry mob every time something happens. We have competant law enforcements, there's no need to be a call to arms.

[CrAz3D]

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page66.asp
The blue line is since they instituted a gun ban in 97

The experiences in the U.K. and Australia, two island nations whose borders are much easier to monitor, should also give Canadian gun controllers some pause. The British government banned handguns in 1997 but recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03.

Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned. Yet, since 1996 the serious-violent-crime rate has soared by 69 percent; robbery is up 45 percent, and murders up 54 percent. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen 50 percent from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost to its 1993 level.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200508190817.asp

Then you only have criminals with guns.  The Brits banned handguns, what did they get?  WAY more gun crimes.  You can't prevent EVERYONE from having guns.  You can only make it more illegal for law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

Police can't respond as fast as an armed citizen.  An armed student could've saved lives at VA Tech or NIU.

Same "Armed" citizen could also have been the Virginia Tech shooter.
You seem to think that upon seeing an armed man everyone will run to the closet, grab their double barreled shot gun, and blow his shit apart. Do you think people will carry it on them at all times, do you think the amount of good it may potentially do will outweigh the bad that it's doing?

It's the insane fucks who buy the guns who commit the atrocities. Look at a lot of murders, where did the shooter get the gun? They on more than a handful of occasions have traced it back to the gun store which he bought the gun in.

It's barbaric to expect citizens to arm themselves and form into an angry mob every time something happens. We have competant law enforcements, there's no need to be a call to arms.

Well, if the armed guy at VA Tech was the only guy on campus w/a concealed license and with a concealed weapon then the results wouldn't have been any different now would they?  Now if there were others with their weapon it very well could've ended better.

I'm not talking about arming MORE people, I'm talking about allowing students who are already armed to stay armed while on campus.  That is a common misconception about the SCCC movement, that we're for everyone being armed when that is simply not the case.

[Explicit]

Guns aren't dangerous, it's a tool.  That's my point, people are dangerous.  And when you limit the use of that tool to only one side of the "fight" the other side is helpless.

If you honestly believe you can divide the general populace into "good" and "bad" guys, then I think you have another thing coming.

There are serious repercussions to be considered when trying to introduce, let alone even think about allowing students to carry firearms in an academic environment. I don't feel the need to really mention the details, but one thing I'm certain of is that parents wouldn't want to entrust their children to schools where people walk around freely wielding a weapon.

Things can go wrong. What if one misfires? The safety can click out of place just as easily as it can into place. With the hustle-and-bustle of students shuffling past one another, there's bound to be accidents. You can't deny the possibility of it happening.

If you want to own and carry a firearm at your leisure, then that's fine. School is an environment for developing minds, not an environment where one should have to be paranoid all the time.

[edit] fixed typo.

[Explicit]

Coincidentally, saws and hammers are tools. People can (and do) injure themselves with those tools. If a gun is a tool, then logically, it follows that people can and probably will injure themselves with one.

Saws and hammers are really simple, too.

[CrAz3D]

Guns aren't dangerous, it's a tool.  That's my point, people are dangerous.  And when you limit the use of that tool to only one side of the "fight" the other side is helpless.

If you honestly believe you can divide the general populace into "good" and "bad" guys, then I think you have another thing coming.

There are serious repercussions to be considered when trying to introduce, let alone even think about allowing students to carry firearms in an academic environment. I don't feel the need to really mention the details, but one thing I'm certain of is that parents wouldn't want to trust their children to schools where people walk around freely wielding a weapon.

Things can go wrong. What if one misfires? The safety can click out of place just as easily as it can into place. With the hustle-and-bustle of students shuffling past one another, there's bound to be accidents. You can't deny the possibility of it happening.

If you want to own and carry a firearm at your leisure, then that's fine. School is an environment for developing minds, not an environment where one should have to be paranoid all the time.

1) We're talking good & bad people as bad-are going to murder people and good-aren't going to commit murder.  That's black and white

2) These "children" can already carry the same weapon to grocery stores, the mall, gas stations, public sidewalks, etc.  SCCC is just pushing for campus carry now, too.

3) What if a gun misfires?  Then nothing happens.  What happens if the safety is disengaged?  Then you reengage it ... there is no reason to have a round already chambered and be walking around with the weapon cocked.  The only chance of an accident like that is an EXTREMELY irresponsible person, which CHL people are not when compared to the average citizen.  CHL people are much more responsible, as Sidoh agreed (before I deleted his post in another thread )

4) What about those of us who are paranoid about being helpless because the government prevents us from protecting ourselves?

5) People with saws and hammers and guns that injure themselves/others have to be held responsible for that.  And since CHLers are less likely than the average citizen, I can see it happening much less.






Can I get this split, please?

[CrAz3D]

[Explicit]

Guns aren't dangerous, it's a tool.  That's my point, people are dangerous.  And when you limit the use of that tool to only one side of the "fight" the other side is helpless.

If you honestly believe you can divide the general populace into "good" and "bad" guys, then I think you have another thing coming.

There are serious repercussions to be considered when trying to introduce, let alone even think about allowing students to carry firearms in an academic environment. I don't feel the need to really mention the details, but one thing I'm certain of is that parents wouldn't want to trust their children to schools where people walk around freely wielding a weapon.

Things can go wrong. What if one misfires? The safety can click out of place just as easily as it can into place. With the hustle-and-bustle of students shuffling past one another, there's bound to be accidents. You can't deny the possibility of it happening.

If you want to own and carry a firearm at your leisure, then that's fine. School is an environment for developing minds, not an environment where one should have to be paranoid all the time.

1) We're talking good & bad people as bad-are going to murder people and good-aren't going to commit murder.  That's black and white

2) These "children" can already carry the same weapon to grocery stores, the mall, gas stations, public sidewalks, etc.  SCCC is just pushing for campus carry now, too.

3) What if a gun misfires?  Then nothing happens.  What happens if the safety is disengaged?  Then you reengage it ... there is no reason to have a round already chambered and be walking around with the weapon cocked.  The only chance of an accident like that is an EXTREMELY irresponsible person, which CHL people are not when compared to the average citizen.  CHL people are much more responsible, as Sidoh agreed (before I deleted his post in another thread )

4) What about those of us who are paranoid about being helpless because the government prevents us from protecting ourselves?

5) People with saws and hammers and guns that injure themselves/others have to be held responsible for that.  And since CHLers are less likely than the average citizen, I can see it happening much less.

Can I get this split, please?

1) Humans are temperamental beings. Police for example, don't patrol the streets with the intention of murdering people (though this can be subjectively argued), but it does happen, and sometimes unlawfully. They're trained to be as patient with people as possible, and only to use force when necessary. But it does so happen that even they succumb to their emotions.

What makes you think an above average citizen's judgment will be any better than someone who is actually trained for the job? Average citizens don't live day-to-day engaging crime head-on like officers do, and so their judgment is more likely (take note of my wording) to be impaired by other factors that they aren't even trained to consider.

2) I didn't mean to use children to sound condescending. I'm using it with the perspective of being a parent in mind.

3) Just because someone has a concealed weapons permit doesn't necessarily mean they will adhere to the strict training provided by the SCCC. It's just like driving. People are taught to not speed, but many can and do. This scenario doesn't come off as anything different.

4) I can pose that same question to you provided that you switch the contexts around. But what does paranoia over being helpless have to do with paranoia over losing your life to a misfire in an academic environment, or a human being who's at the end of his rope, and just so happens to have access to a weapon on-site?

Being a victim of intent in an uncontrollable circumstance, like the case of the Virginia Tech shooting, is different from being a victim of an accident. The primary distinction between the two is intent -- mens rea.

5) The fact is that it's not an impossibility.

[CrAz3D]

1) Humans are flawed ... so?  That's not anything new

An above-average responsible citizen may/may not act better than a cop, but they'll SURE AS HELL act a lot sooner (look at picture posted above)


3) Again people are flawed, if we want to prevent all harm always we'd have to be in bubbles, otherwise people shouldn't be sitting ducks

4) Someone that flips and already has a gun (we're not talking about giving more people guns, just letting them carry them) won't be stopped by a sign.

[Explicit]

1) Humans are flawed ... so?  That's not anything new

An above-average responsible citizen may/may not act better than a cop, but they'll SURE AS HELL act a lot sooner (look at picture posted above)


3) Again people are flawed, if we want to prevent all harm always we'd have to be in bubbles, otherwise people shouldn't be sitting ducks

4) Someone that flips and already has a gun (we're not talking about giving more people guns, just letting them carry them) won't be stopped by a sign.

1) Shouldn't that be reason enough for not being able to carry guns in an academic environment? Those are your exact words.

Timely justice is not the same as untimely justice; under no circumstance can you equate the two.

3) If people are flawed, why trust them with a gun to begin with then?

4) I'm missing your point. Can you elaborate?

[Explicit]

3) Again people are flawed, if we want to prevent all harm always we'd have to be in bubbles, otherwise people shouldn't be sitting ducks

This comes back to this:

Guns aren't dangerous, it's a tool.  That's my point, people are dangerous.  And when you limit the use of that tool to only one side of the "fight" the other side is helpless.

More specifically, the part where you say, "the other side is helpless."

[Edit: for clarification]

In case you don't get it, I'm pointing out an instance of reductio ad absurdum.

[CrAz3D]

1) No, because it'd then be argument enough to prevent anyone from doing anything that might have a non-positive (not even necessarily negative) outcome

It isn't about JUSTICE, it's about protecting yourself and others.

3) If people are flawed why allow anyone with guns?  Including police?

4) If a person is going to flip out and kill people on campus they're going to do it anyway, regardless of there being a "gun free zone" sign there

5) I don't want to be helpless in a situation where I could help myself, if only it were legal.

[Explicit]

1) and 3) you're missing my point. It's beginning to sound like you want to have a gun just for the reason of shooting someone rather than for said safety and protection of others. I think that for the same reasons I outlined in my previous post.

4) Shouldn't a sign prohibiting guns throw up a red flag in the individual's mind that what they are doing is wrong? How are they different from any other citizen, then, if they continue their course of action and fire at someone? You mentioned before that someone wielding a concealed weapons permit is an "above-average citizen," so provided that they received proper training, shouldn't they realize that what they are doing is wrong and against the terms of the permit, and immediately give in?

5) No one wants to be helpless, especially in a situation like that, but that's why we run should another shooting like Virginia Tech ever take place (which I pray doesn't).

[Newby]

Can I get this split, please?

Yes, you can, but in fear that you won't have a fair argument (you took the liberty of deleting logical posts of sidoh/explicit in your forum) it will stay in general discussion.

Knock yourselves out.

[rabbit]

CrAz3D, you're bringing policy statements into what appears to be a proposition of fact.  You can't do that.

[iago]

So is it actually necessary to go all or nothing? What about a compromise?

In Canada, for example, guns aren't illegal, but they're strictly controlled. It's difficult to get a gun here, but not impossible.

From personal experience, I can say that there is very little gun crime here. I've lived in two major Canadian cities, and I can say that I've never seen a gun (although I do know people who collect them). Nor do I know anybody whose life has been affected by a gun, one way or the other. I think that what we're doing here is working, whether or not you believe it.

Also, here's some thoughts on banning guns:
1) Banning guns doesn't work so well when other countries, especially neighbouring ones, make it fairly easy to get a gun.
2) When guns are initially banned, even if there is an amnesty on turning them in, there will almost certainly be a rise in gun crimes in the short term, for the reasons that you said. However, if it's difficult to obtain them for a long period of time, I think that crime will fall. Guns don't last forever. Is a short period of more pain worth a long period of less pain? Dunno.

And incidentally, why could CrAz3d even delete posts from General? SMF permissions are so flaky..

[CrAz3D]

Can I get this split, please?

Yes, you can, but in fear that you won't have a fair argument (you took the liberty of deleting logical posts of sidoh/explicit in your forum) it will stay in general discussion.

Knock yourselves out.

Those were way off topic, they didnt need to be in that thread.

[Sidoh]

Can I get this split, please?

Yes, you can, but in fear that you won't have a fair argument (you took the liberty of deleting logical posts of sidoh/explicit in your forum) it will stay in general discussion.

Knock yourselves out.

Those were way off topic, they didnt need to be in that thread.

How were they way off topic?  You asked for points to send to whoever that guy was.  If you're looking for points, I'm pretty sure you want the ones you have to make sense... ie, be relevant to the argument, which the one I pointed out was not.

Even if they were, It's rude and stupid to DELETE posts, especially when they have a good deal of meaning.

And incidentally, why could CrAz3d even delete posts from General? SMF permissions are so flaky..

The thread were in his forum.

[iago]

And incidentally, why could CrAz3d even delete posts from General? SMF permissions are so flaky..

The thread were in his forum.

Aha, didn't know that.

But yeah, when threads get off topic, I generally try to split off the bad ones, not delete them. No matter how much I disagree.

[abc]

I'm all for concealed weapons, if the person who has one knows how to use it properly with the right judgment.

[Explicit]

I think I've said enough.

[CrAz3D]

1) and 3) you're missing my point. It's beginning to sound like you want to have a gun just for the reason of shooting someone rather than for said safety and protection of others. I think that for the same reasons I outlined in my previous post.

4) Shouldn't a sign prohibiting guns throw up a red flag in the individual's mind that what they are doing is wrong? How are they different from any other citizen, then, if they continue their course of action and fire at someone? You mentioned before that someone wielding a concealed weapons permit is an "above-average citizen," so provided that they received proper training, shouldn't they realize that what they are doing is wrong and against the terms of the permit, and immediately give in?

5) No one wants to be helpless, especially in a situation like that, but that's why we run should another shooting like Virginia Tech ever take place (which I pray doesn't).

1) Of course guns can cause harm.  Of course people can misuse them.  But they can also prevent harm and be used correctly.  That's why they should be allowed on campus

4) I was talking about the current situation.  There are laws against bringing guns on campuses, it hasn't stopped people.  Preventing gun possession makes sure that the innocent are the only ones unarmed.

5) In some cases you can't run.  I'm not say "go look for the guy if you're on campus with your weapon" ... it's just that there are cases, especially in the VA Tech case, where someone with a concealed weapon could've prevented/lessened the damages that the VA Tech gunman inflicted.

CrAz3D, you're bringing policy statements into what appears to be a proposition of fact.  You can't do that.

Such as?

So is it actually necessary to go all or nothing? What about a compromise?

In Canada, for example, guns aren't illegal, but they're strictly controlled. It's difficult to get a gun here, but not impossible.

From personal experience, I can say that there is very little gun crime here. I've lived in two major Canadian cities, and I can say that I've never seen a gun (although I do know people who collect them). Nor do I know anybody whose life has been affected by a gun, one way or the other. I think that what we're doing here is working, whether or not you believe it.

Also, here's some thoughts on banning guns:
1) Banning guns doesn't work so well when other countries, especially neighbouring ones, make it fairly easy to get a gun.
2) When guns are initially banned, even if there is an amnesty on turning them in, there will almost certainly be a rise in gun crimes in the short term, for the reasons that you said. However, if it's difficult to obtain them for a long period of time, I think that crime will fall. Guns don't last forever. Is a short period of more pain worth a long period of less pain? Dunno.

And incidentally, why could CrAz3d even delete posts from General? SMF permissions are so flaky..

There are also hoops to jump through in Illinois.  Some normal people just snap.  So unless there is a way to prevent all gun possession (any gun, any where, by anyone) then preventing law abiding citizens from possessing a firearm makes them sitting ducks.

Guns do, virtually, last forever.  Any gun in existence, if maintained, will last until our grand children our dead.

Also, I believe gun crime goes immediately after gun bans, but goes up once people find new sources for guns.  Guns are ALWAYS going to be available to criminals, there are no two ways about it.

Even if they were, It's rude and stupid to DELETE posts, especially when they have a good deal of meaning.

A) The topic was "anything else I should point out?"
B) Thanks for the personal attack

[Sidoh]

A) The topic was "anything else I should point out?"
B) Thanks for the personal attack

Does that mean that you don't care if you point out irrelevant things?  It doesn't matter if my posts didn't answer the question you were asking.  They were very relevant to what you were doing.

It is stupid.  There's no point to it.

[CrAz3D]

But they were off topic (as you're making this thread) which questions their relevance.

[Sidoh]

But they were off topic (as you're making this thread) which questions their relevance.

So you don't care?  If I were writing to my senator to convince him of something, I certainly would want my argument to be cogent.  Like I've told you twice before, I wasn't trying to raise an argument with you.  I was pointing out a truth that was obvious to me.

For an argument to be cogent, each of its premises must be acceptable, relevant and provide good grounds for the conclusion.  The one I was speaking of wasn't relevant therefore didn't provide any grounds for the conclusion.

[CrAz3D]

Pointing out the obvious isn't always bad, some times people don't realize the obvious.




Can I get this split, again?

[Sidoh]

Pointing out the obvious isn't always bad, some times people don't realize the obvious.

Ugh, you don't get it, do you?

It doesn't matter if they didn't realize that.  It does not contribute to your argument at all.  Like I pointed out in one of my posts you deleted, you may as well tell them that grass is usually green or breathing is good for you.

[iago]

There are also hoops to jump through in Illinois.  Some normal people just snap.  So unless there is a way to prevent all gun possession (any gun, any where, by anyone) then preventing law abiding citizens from possessing a firearm makes them sitting ducks.

Guns do, virtually, last forever.  Any gun in existence, if maintained, will last until our grand children our dead.

Also, I believe gun crime goes immediately after gun bans, but goes up once people find new sources for guns.  Guns are ALWAYS going to be available to criminals, there are no two ways about it.

It doesn't work in a single state, obviously, because there are easy sources all around.

Guns can last a long time, but that's not the point. The majority of guns will eventually fall out of circulation, is the point. I doubt that most guns are properly maintained and whatnot, and that's kind of the point.

Your own post proved that gun crime went up immediately after. When you get into trafficking and smuggling, you suddenly exclude the vast majority of people, especially petty criminals and normal people who snap, from the equation. So it depends how you define "criminals" -- yes, organized crime and the like will still have them (and they do in my city), but the average person/criminal doesn't.

[rabbit]

CrAz3D, anywhere you said "should" automatically makes that statement a policy issue.  What you need to do (and by title and general tone of the thread), is first establish that concealed weapons are GOOD (ie: get ANYBODY to agree with you via logic, be that by statistics, research studies, etc...) and THEN to say that they SHOULD be permitted and give what you have researched thoroughly as the most likely outcome of the permittance (word?) of concealed weapons.  You're trying to convince everyone that concealed weapons need to be permitted by saying they should be and saying that they probably could have maybe made a difference, without citing any sources of any kind.  Go take a basic communications course.

[iago]

Incidentally, why do we ban harmful narcotics (heroin, meth), heavy weapons (grenades, rocket launchers), and things like that? Criminals could still get them, and they can cause harm to the general populace.

[CrAz3D]

There are also hoops to jump through in Illinois.  Some normal people just snap.  So unless there is a way to prevent all gun possession (any gun, any where, by anyone) then preventing law abiding citizens from possessing a firearm makes them sitting ducks.

Guns do, virtually, last forever.  Any gun in existence, if maintained, will last until our grand children our dead.

Also, I believe gun crime goes immediately after gun bans, but goes up once people find new sources for guns.  Guns are ALWAYS going to be available to criminals, there are no two ways about it.

It doesn't work in a single state, obviously, because there are easy sources all around.

Guns can last a long time, but that's not the point. The majority of guns will eventually fall out of circulation, is the point. I doubt that most guns are properly maintained and whatnot, and that's kind of the point.

Your own post proved that gun crime went up immediately after. When you get into trafficking and smuggling, you suddenly exclude the vast majority of people, especially petty criminals and normal people who snap, from the equation. So it depends how you define "criminals" -- yes, organized crime and the like will still have them (and they do in my city), but the average person/criminal doesn't.

You can't get any or all states to completely ban guns, so, moot point.

Well, I suppose I should've said violent street crime w/guns.  Once guns are banned gun crime is going to go up consistently every year because more and more people are going to have to turn to the black market for weapons.

[iago]

You can't get any or all states to completely ban guns, so, moot point.

Not moot point when you're talking about the morality/ethics of banning guns (which this thread is). Being difficult doesn't make it ok to not ban guns.

Well, I suppose I should've said violent street crime w/guns.  Once guns are banned gun crime is going to go up consistently every year because more and more people are going to have to turn to the black market for weapons.

Citation needed. In the only graph I've seen (the one you posted earlier), only 6 years were shown, and even before guns were banned crime had been going up. In any case, I don't think you'd be able to get a reasonable estimate without a graph of at least 20 - 50 years. As I said, it's a long-term thing, not a short term.

[CrAz3D]

It is so difficult that it as close to impossible as you can get without being impossible.  It will never ever happen and is irrelevant to any reasonable gun debate.

Indication about crimes using guns since the banning of handguns.

In Britain, however, the image of violent America remains unassailably entrenched. Never mind the findings of the International Crime Victims Survey (published by the Home Office in 2003), indicating that we now suffer three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States; never mind the doubling of handgun crime in Britain over the past decade, since we banned pistols outright and confiscated all the legal ones.

Indication that when British citizens were mostly armed, that crimes with guns were much lower than current times.

If armed crime in London in the years before the First World War amounted to less than 2 per cent of that we suffer today, it was not simply because society then was more stable. Edwardian Britain was rocked by a series of massive strikes in which lives were lost and troops deployed, and suffragette incendiaries, anarchist bombers, Fenians, and the spectre of a revolutionary general strike made Britain then arguably a much more turbulent place than it is today. In that unstable society the impact of the widespread carrying of arms was not inflammatory, it was deterrent of violence.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2409817.ece


While this image is comedic, it is completely true.  Why doesn't person A shoot at person B?  Because person B has a gun!
Guns are NOT the problem, people are the problem, and you can't ban them (well, you could ... )

[CrAz3D]

Also, Gandhi supports arming society.
http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/1913

[Explicit]

1) and 3) you're missing my point. It's beginning to sound like you want to have a gun just for the reason of shooting someone rather than for said safety and protection of others. I think that for the same reasons I outlined in my previous post.

4) Shouldn't a sign prohibiting guns throw up a red flag in the individual's mind that what they are doing is wrong? How are they different from any other citizen, then, if they continue their course of action and fire at someone? You mentioned before that someone wielding a concealed weapons permit is an "above-average citizen," so provided that they received proper training, shouldn't they realize that what they are doing is wrong and against the terms of the permit, and immediately give in?

5) No one wants to be helpless, especially in a situation like that, but that's why we run should another shooting like Virginia Tech ever take place (which I pray doesn't).

1) Of course guns can cause harm.  Of course people can misuse them.  But they can also prevent harm and be used correctly.  That's why they should be allowed on campus

4) I was talking about the current situation.  There are laws against bringing guns on campuses, it hasn't stopped people.  Preventing gun possession makes sure that the innocent are the only ones unarmed.

5) In some cases you can't run.  I'm not say "go look for the guy if you're on campus with your weapon" ... it's just that there are cases, especially in the VA Tech case, where someone with a concealed weapon could've prevented/lessened the damages that the VA Tech gunman inflicted.

CrAz3D, you're bringing policy statements into what appears to be a proposition of fact.  You can't do that.

Such as?

So is it actually necessary to go all or nothing? What about a compromise?

In Canada, for example, guns aren't illegal, but they're strictly controlled. It's difficult to get a gun here, but not impossible.

From personal experience, I can say that there is very little gun crime here. I've lived in two major Canadian cities, and I can say that I've never seen a gun (although I do know people who collect them). Nor do I know anybody whose life has been affected by a gun, one way or the other. I think that what we're doing here is working, whether or not you believe it.

Also, here's some thoughts on banning guns:
1) Banning guns doesn't work so well when other countries, especially neighbouring ones, make it fairly easy to get a gun.
2) When guns are initially banned, even if there is an amnesty on turning them in, there will almost certainly be a rise in gun crimes in the short term, for the reasons that you said. However, if it's difficult to obtain them for a long period of time, I think that crime will fall. Guns don't last forever. Is a short period of more pain worth a long period of less pain? Dunno.

And incidentally, why could CrAz3d even delete posts from General? SMF permissions are so flaky..

There are also hoops to jump through in Illinois.  Some normal people just snap.  So unless there is a way to prevent all gun possession (any gun, any where, by anyone) then preventing law abiding citizens from possessing a firearm makes them sitting ducks.

Guns do, virtually, last forever.  Any gun in existence, if maintained, will last until our grand children our dead.

Also, I believe gun crime goes immediately after gun bans, but goes up once people find new sources for guns.  Guns are ALWAYS going to be available to criminals, there are no two ways about it.

Even if they were, It's rude and stupid to DELETE posts, especially when they have a good deal of meaning.

A) The topic was "anything else I should point out?"
B) Thanks for the personal attack

I'm dismissing your efforts at persuasion; you haven't constructed any logical arguments to give your side leverage, and it's clear that you are extremely biased in the matter.

I stand by my statement when I say that I think I've said enough. As of now, I do encourage you to write that letter to whoever it was that you're trying to persuade, because I know for a fact that it's going to get shot down.

My reasoning: These forums are a collective conscience, and you have yet to sway people onto your side of the case. If you can't even make your case to the people here on the forums, then I believe you stand very little chance in making your case to the person you're writing to.

I'm done with this, but I genuinely do wish you luck on your endeavor.

[CrAz3D]

That's because you aren't thinking it through.

It's not my fault your a moron

[Newby]

It's not my fault your a moron

lol @ that statement as a whole.

Way to argue like a decent person. -_-

[iago]

It's not my fault your a moron

lol @ that statement as a whole.

Way to argue like a decent person. -_-

Not to mention the irony. "your"

[Krazed]

Two threads on the pretty much the exact same topic is pretty stupid. But I guess it fits, since the idea of concealed weapons is stupid.

[Explicit]

That's because you aren't thinking it through.

It's not my fault your a moron

All I can do is lol at that. Way to take a shot below the belt when all I've been to you is open-minded and fair. That's fine, though. It signifies to me that you're undeserving of the respect I initially gave (and want to continue giving) you. I'm sorry you couldn't offer me the same, but like I said, that's why I think you're extremely biased in the matter. If something doesn't fit into your scheme of things, you refuse to accept it contrary to the logic put forth. That's usually how it is though when people argue over subjects that are so close to them on an emotional level. It's either that, or Devil's advocate...

Besides, I'd rather not play hop-scotch or connect-the-dots with your broken logic, because really, that's all I've been doing so far, and quite frankly, I'm growing weary of it.

Also, I don't know if it's your ego or the booze that's congesting your thoughts, but like I said, please write that letter. If it's not rejection from me and other members on the forum that you're willing to accept, then hopefully it will be the person you're writing to.

And if it's not too much, I ask that you keep me informed on what the response you receive is, whether it's in your favor or not. If I don't see it in the upcoming months, then I will keep the assumption that you're biased. If I do see it, then I will relinquish that assumption.

How's that sound for a proposition? On my end, I honestly think that that is as fair as I can get.

[Explicit]

If it goes off topic again I'll just move it ... but I just wanted that thread to be on topic

Those were way off topic, they didnt need to be in that thread.

But they were off topic (as you're making this thread) which questions their relevance.

Stop going off topic!

And just for good measure:

A) The topic was "anything else I should point out?"
B) Thanks for the personal attack

That's because you aren't thinking it through.

It's not my fault your a moron

Oh the hypocrisy!

[Sidoh]

A) The topic was "anything else I should point out?"
B) Thanks for the personal attack

That's because you aren't thinking it through.

It's not my fault your a moron

Oh the hypocrisy!

Hahahah.

It's not my fault your a moron

Hahahah.

[Explicit]

That's because you aren't thinking it through.

It's not my fault your a moron

After some additional thought, I've come to the conclusion that you're right: I'm not thinking it through, and it indeed isn't your fault that I'm a moron.

I mean, if everyone else here on the forum doesn't see it your way, how can I even come close? I guess by your tokening, that would make us all morons.

You see what I did there?

[Sidoh]

I see what you did there.

[MyndFyre]

It's not my fault your a moron

lol @ that statement as a whole.

Way to argue like a decent person. -_-

Not to mention the irony. "your"

That was what I was LOLing at!

As an aside, Arizona is so hip to concealed weapons that we're going to put forth a bill to allow guns to be carried on campuses by people with a concealed-carry permit.

[CrAz3D]

It's not my fault your a moron

lol @ that statement as a whole.

Way to argue like a decent person. -_-

I learned from our dear, dear leader Sidoh, what can I say? 


Also, I tried to find the picture of a redneck holding a sign that says that (grammatical error was the big point) ... thought it'd be fitting.  Too bad I couldn't find it/didn't care enough to look more .







As for my arugment not being convincing, or whatever, no one has posted ANY good counter arguments.  Point one out, I'll show how my argument is better.  Do it, I dare ya

[iago]

You had an argument?

[Explicit]

You had an argument?

lol.

CrAz3D, the only thing you've shown thus far is incompetence in constructing sound and valid arguments, and following chains of reasoning.

Go take a logic class.

[CrAz3D]

Well, I don't even know what've been going on in this thread really ... but I've had valid points.


But just to appease you ...

Universities SHOULD allow concealed carry for the following reasons:
1) Police response time is often too long to prevent or lessen the harm.
2) Students with their Concealed Handgun License (CHL) have the potentital to resolve the situation much sooner than police can.  30 people died on the campus of Virginia Tech AFTER police arrived.
3) Students are "sitting ducks" when disarmed by law.  Allowing students with CHLs to carry on campus will end the prescription of the "sitting duck" and allow students to make their own choices.
4) University campuses are no more stressful than (A) homes with screaming children and bills due; (B) crowded grocery stores; (C) heavy traffic streets; (D) self employement in many fields; (E) the military; and so forth.  All of the aforementioned places allow concealed carry of firearms (B & C vary by state law and circumstances).

[iago]

Well, I don't even know what've been going on in this thread really ... but I've had valid points.


But just to appease you ...

Universities SHOULD allow concealed carry for the following reasons:
1) Police response time is often too long to prevent or lessen the harm.
2) Students with their Concealed Handgun License (CHL) have the potentital to resolve the situation much sooner than police can.  30 people died on the campus of Virginia Tech AFTER police arrived.
3) Students are "sitting ducks" when disarmed by law.  Allowing students with CHLs to carry on campus will end the prescription of the "sitting duck" and allow students to make their own choices.
4) University campuses are no more stressful than (A) homes with screaming children and bills due; (B) crowded grocery stores; (C) heavy traffic streets; (D) self employement in many fields; (E) the military; and so forth.  All of the aforementioned places allow concealed carry of firearms (B & C vary by state law and circumstances).

Although I don't agree with all those points, I feel it necessary to bridge the threads by pointing out that those exact same arguments can be applied to highschool students, but I don't see anybody arguing in favour to arm them. What's the difference?

[CrAz3D]

The majority of high schools students can't do the following: buy a handgun, buy handgun ammo, possess a handgun, buy a rifle, buy rifle ammunition, possess a rifle, be their own legal guardian, hold a job, drive, join the military, or vote.  The school maintains all control and responsibility over these people.  These people don't even have full rights.

Also, AGAIN, I'm arguing for CONCEALED CARRY ON UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES, no where else, no where less, and nothing different.  We're not talking about arming more people.  We're not talking about arming 6 year olds.  The purpose of SCCC is to open university campuses to concealed carry.

[iago]

But you just argued that
a) police can't help students
b) students with guns can resolve a "situation"
c) students are sitting ducks if they don't have weapons
and d) campuses aren't more stressful than home (I don't think it's unreasonable to extend that to highschools)

That's your argument. Right? I just re-worded a tad to summarize it quickly.

Now, if that argument, as you wrote it, is valid for university students, why isn't it valid for highschool students?

If you don't think it's valid for highschool students, you're going to have to re-think your argument, because apparently it is invalid.

[Explicit]

But you just argued that
a) police can't help students
b) students with guns can resolve a "situation"
c) students are sitting ducks if they don't have weapons
and d) campuses aren't more stressful than home (I don't think it's unreasonable to extend that to highschools)

That's your argument. Right? I just re-worded a tad to summarize it quickly.

Now, if that argument, as you wrote it, is valid for university students, why isn't it valid for highschool students?

If you don't think it's valid for highschool students, you're going to have to re-think your argument, because apparently it is invalid.

Great that you caught one of his false premises.

[CrAz3D]

High school students can't own guns.  It is irrelevant to talk about concealed carry for high schools.


Bender, what are you talking about?

[Explicit]

Your argument breaks down as such:

People should have the right to protect themselves. Otherwise, they are considered to be "sitting ducks."

High schoolers are people, therefore they should have the same right to protect themselves. Otherwise, they are considered to be "sitting ducks."

You unknowingly reject the premise that high schoolers are people if you don't give them the same right of being able to protect themselves.

I understand that they can't in terms of legality, but this is a weak point in your argument, and as iago said, you have to revise it so that it accommodates for all people rather than catering to university level students.

See what I'm talking about?

[iago]

High school students can't own guns.  It is irrelevant to talk about concealed carry for high schools.

College students can't bring guns on campus. But it's relevant to talk about that?

As long as you're making an argument against one law, you should consider its implication to others. If your argument against abortion can be used to justify murder, then it's a bad argument.

[deadly7]

Also, Gandhi supports arming society.
http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/1913

See, the thing about that is that it's different. When the US is being colonized by Britain and they're denying us guns, then feel free to use that quote to support your ludicrous claim.  Until then, quoting out of context = Fox News style journalism.

[CrAz3D]

Your argument breaks down as such:

People should have the right to protect themselves. Otherwise, they are considered to be "sitting ducks."

High schoolers are people, therefore they should have the same right to protect themselves. Otherwise, they are considered to be "sitting ducks."

You unknowingly reject the premise that high schoolers are people if you don't give them the same right of being able to protect themselves.

I understand that they can't in terms of legality, but this is a weak point in your argument, and as iago said, you have to revise it so that it accommodates for all people rather than catering to university level students.

See what I'm talking about?

No, I'm just disregarding the argument about allowing high schoolers to protect themselves, not rejecting it.  It's not the current topic AT FUCKING ALL.

High school students can't own guns.  It is irrelevant to talk about concealed carry for high schools.

College students can't bring guns on campus. But it's relevant to talk about that?

As long as you're making an argument against one law, you should consider its implication to others. If your argument against abortion can be used to justify murder, then it's a bad argument.

I'm singling out the law because it's easier to change laws one at a time.  Do you think that the NAACP went straight for desegregation?  No, they chipped at it.  High schools are not the topic and I refuse to talk about it again.

Also, Gandhi supports arming society.
http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/1913

See, the thing about that is that it's different. When the US is being colonized by Britain and they're denying us guns, then feel free to use that quote to support your ludicrous claim.  Until then, quoting out of context = Fox News style journalism.

It's still the same principle, preventing people from protecting themselves.

[iago]

No, I'm just disregarding the argument about allowing high schoolers to protect themselves, not rejecting it.  It's not the current topic AT FUCKING ALL.

I believe I already explained 4 times why it IS important to the topic. So let me try a fifth time.

Let's say you want to make an argument in favour of abortion or capital punishment. Your argument is that all human life is worthless and therefore the unborn babies or criminals don't matter. However, that argument also supports murder, which is something that I hope everybody here morally disagrees with. I'd say that looking at the consequences of an argument is important for that kind of reason -- you have to look at how the argument works in every situation.

With the argument as you very clearly stated, it is favorable to arm high schoolers, everybody should be wearing riot gear, and everybody should be carrying the biggest weapon they can find. Obviously, that isn't an ideal situation. Therefore, there is a problem with your argument, and it needs to be fixed.

Note that in the last few posts, I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion, I don't care about that. I'm pointing out that your argument is flawed, and trying to explain why. So stop being defense -- if you want to continue this, look at how you can fix your argument, not calling it irrelevant to show flaws.

[CrAz3D]

My argument is that we should allow people that are otherwise able, to protect themselves.

I'll finish this tomorrow .... please disregard anything from here on out I might say in relation to this topic ... I've started to drink

[Explicit]

Your argument breaks down as such:

People should have the right to protect themselves. Otherwise, they are considered to be "sitting ducks."

High schoolers are people, therefore they should have the same right to protect themselves. Otherwise, they are considered to be "sitting ducks."

You unknowingly reject the premise that high schoolers are people if you don't give them the same right of being able to protect themselves.

I understand that they can't in terms of legality, but this is a weak point in your argument, and as iago said, you have to revise it so that it accommodates for all people rather than catering to university level students.

See what I'm talking about?

No, I'm just disregarding the argument about allowing high schoolers to protect themselves, not rejecting it.  It's not the current topic AT FUCKING ALL.

It has everything to do with the topic; you just refuse to accept it as relevant.

My argument is that we should allow people that are otherwise able, to protect themselves.

High schoolers are people, and they are just as capable of pulling a trigger to protect themselves in the event of a school shooting. Do you propose they be sitting ducks also when they can obviously help otherwise?

Respond in the morning when you're sober.

[CrAz3D]

Again, this is SPECIFICALLY about universities, we're not addressing the issue of unprotected high school students.  I don't deny that they're disarmed and that police still can't respond faster than a student at-the-scene, but that's a different thread.

[Explicit]

Incidentally, I stumbled upon this: http://www.x86labs.org/forum/index.php/topic,10448.0.html

[CrAz3D]

Incidentally, I stumbled upon this: http://www.x86labs.org/forum/index.php/topic,10448.0.html

Yup.

SCCC started shortly after VA Tech.

[MyndFyre]

High school students can't own guns.  It is irrelevant to talk about concealed carry for high schools.

College students can't bring guns on campus. But it's relevant to talk about that?

Pretty soon they'll be able to in Arizona.

High school students can't own guns. 

Ahh, but TEACHERS in high schools can!  And I could DEFINITELY envision a high school teacher offing one of her students.

[CrAz3D]

iago was talking about teenage students, not teachers.

I wouldn't mind armed teachers.



I'm also quite happy that no one would/could pick at my reasons for concealed campus carrying.

[rabbit]

Aside from it being a totally stupid idea?

[Blaze]

I wouldn't mind armed teachers.

I've seen teachers get angry enough to throw desks/chairs/monitors at students, often breaking these in the process.  I sure as hell wouldn't want one with a gun, nor would I want most of the people at my school to have a gun.

[CrAz3D]

Aside from it being a totally stupid idea?

Which you can't argue ... so  





p.s. Here are the laws that REALLY support concealed carry on university campuses in New Mexico

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)    

The part that reads "but nothing herein shall be hedl to permit the carrying of concealed weapons" was reviewed upon the passage of the current Concealed Carry Act in New Mexico.  Challengers argued that Art. II, Sec. 6 prevented concealed carry, NM Supreme Court ruled that the line in question neither permits nor prevents concealed carrying and that the Concealed Carry Act was in fact constitutional in New Mexico.

NMSA 30-7-2.4 is the statute making carrying of a firearm, except in some cases, a petty misdemeanor.



OBVIOUSLY, NMSA 30-7-2.4 conflicts with Art. II, Sec. 6 of the NM Constitution that reads "No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense..."

[iago]

I'm also quite happy that no one would/could pick at my reasons for concealed campus carrying.

Nope, I'd love to but you call every pick off topic, so it's impossible. But you're great at arguing, thanks for coming out!

But seriously, if you really want to defend your position, go back and answer what I'm asking. I asked several questions that you've not-very-cleverly evaded.


The last couple posts here did remind me of something, though -- why not have trained and armed security guards on campus? That would solve all the problems you point out with the current state without the downsides that you tend to ignore.

[CrAz3D]

You keep talking about high schools, that isn't the argument.



Armed security guards sound like a good idea ... so long as there is at least one in every class and at least one to escort each student to their next class, or maybe one to escort a small group to their next class.  But that seems overly burdensome on the university (it'd be hella friggin' expensive, tutition would go up, and students would drop)

[iago]

You keep talking about high schools, that isn't the argument.

Do you know how when you're arguing with people, the argument generally boils down to the person saying, "you're a fucking moron, I'm not arguing with you anymore"? Well, I'm at that point.

If you don't understand why. GO BACK AND READ MY FUCKING POSTS. I explained 5 times why it's relevant. FIVE!! I'm not doing it again!

Armed security guards sound like a good idea ... so long as there is at least one in every class and at least one to escort each student to their next class, or maybe one to escort a small group to their next class.  But that seems overly burdensome on the university (it'd be hella friggin' expensive, tutition would go up, and students would drop)

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. My idea was exactly that retarded. You hit it right on the button. You can pick up your prize at the "I'm an idiot booth" on your way out.

[CrAz3D]

You keep talking about high schools, that isn't the argument.

Do you know how when you're arguing with people, the argument generally boils down to the person saying, "you're a fucking moron, I'm not arguing with you anymore"? Well, I'm at that point.

If you don't understand why. GO BACK AND READ MY FUCKING POSTS. I explained 5 times why it's relevant. FIVE!! I'm not doing it again!

Armed security guards sound like a good idea ... so long as there is at least one in every class and at least one to escort each student to their next class, or maybe one to escort a small group to their next class.  But that seems overly burdensome on the university (it'd be hella friggin' expensive, tutition would go up, and students would drop)

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. My idea was exactly that retarded. You hit it right on the button. You can pick up your prize at the "I'm an idiot booth" on your way out.

High school isn't the topic, I'm not arguing about high school.  If I was arguing about people protecting themselves in general it'd be relevant, but I'm not.



I sorta thought the same about your idea, good thing we're on the same page.  It just doesn't seem fair to force people out of school because some people with a misconstrued idea of guns wants everyone to be defensless

[iago]

High school isn't the topic, I'm not arguing about high school.  If I was arguing about people protecting themselves in general it'd be relevant, but I'm not.

But highschools (as well as a bunch of other things I listed) should be included by your logic. Therefore, you either have to accept highschools or fix your logic.

I sorta thought the same about your idea, good thing we're on the same page.  It just doesn't seem fair to force people out of school because some people with a misconstrued idea of guns wants everyone to be defensless

Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking. Good call.

[CrAz3D]

My argument relates SPECIFICALLY to 211+ year olds and university campuses.  High school students are younger than 21 and do not attend university campuses (as their main school).  Therefore, non-issue.

[Falcon]

My argument relates SPECIFICALLY to 211+ year olds and university campuses.  High school students are younger than 21 and do not attend university campuses (as their main school).  Therefore, non-issue.

Damn thats pretty old. But there are a lot of people in universities at age 18 or younger, so what about them?

[CrAz3D]

They cant buy guns because you have to be 21.

That's a different law/policy ... not a law/policy being discussed by this campaign.

[Falcon]

So if the shooting starts in a class full of freshmen (rhet 1101), you are fine with them "all being sitting ducks"?

[CrAz3D]

Not really, it's sad.  But from there we need to change federal law.

SCCC is specifically pointed at students who can already carry.

[Explicit]

High school isn't the topic, I'm not arguing about high school.  If I was arguing about people protecting themselves in general it'd be relevant, but I'm not.

But highschools (as well as a bunch of other things I listed) should be included by your logic. Therefore, you either have to accept highschools or fix your logic.

I sorta thought the same about your idea, good thing we're on the same page.  It just doesn't seem fair to force people out of school because some people with a misconstrued idea of guns wants everyone to be defensless

Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking. Good call.

Just give it up, iago. Every objection raised to his "solid" arguments is dismissed as irrelevant, and I don't think that's going to change any time soon.

I chose to dismiss his arguments last night when I finally found the page where he was drawing his defense from.

CrAz3D, your logic isn't as solid as you think it is. I'm not even going to try to point the reasons out anymore since you made it painfully obvious that you just don't get it. If you want to try and figure them out for yourself, then by all means, go for it.

[Ender]

crazed: a, b, and c
sane person: but what about d, e, and f?
*crazed doesn't respond to d, e, f*
crazed: but a, b, and c

repeat this process x100

*sane person goes insane*

[CrAz3D]

...and then they get locked up and I win.


Strategy man, strategy

[Warrior]

unprecedented failure is in this thread














sticky this.

[MyndFyre]

Not really, it's sad.  But from there we need to change federal law.

SCCC is specifically pointed at students who can already carry.

Uh, I'm not sure which federal law you want to change, but in Arizona the right to concealed carry is not impinged at 18.  Everyone who wants a concealed carry must have a permit but that's it.

[CrAz3D]

Not really, it's sad.  But from there we need to change federal law.

SCCC is specifically pointed at students who can already carry.

Uh, I'm not sure which federal law you want to change, but in Arizona the right to concealed carry is not impinged at 18.  Everyone who wants a concealed carry must have a permit but that's it.

Well, you have to be 21 to purchase a handgun ... that's per federal law.  In New Mexico you can possess at 19, but can't buy the weapon or ammunition 'til 21.  I guess I should've included that.

I'm not against 18 year olds "packing heat," really.

[iago]

Not really, it's sad.  But from there we need to change federal law.

SCCC is specifically pointed at students who can already carry.

Uh, I'm not sure which federal law you want to change, but in Arizona the right to concealed carry is not impinged at 18.  Everyone who wants a concealed carry must have a permit but that's it.

Well, you have to be 21 to purchase a handgun ... that's per federal law.  In New Mexico you can possess at 19, but can't buy the weapon or ammunition 'til 21.  I guess I should've included that.

I'm not against 18 year olds "packing heat," really.

Then the question is, what about 16 year olds? 15? 14? 13? 12? Where do you draw the line, and why?

[CrAz3D]

People under 18 are the responsibility of their parents ... sure that's only under American law and that the law of humanity suggests that we all have a right to protect ourselves, but there is a point at which society chooses to say "you can't make wise decisions" regardless of whether the kids actually can.

Why not lower the driving age to 10?  The drinking age to 15?  Society decided that at 16 a person can start taking on the responsibilities of driving.  Society decided that at 19 you can possess a handgun.  etc.
There is some reasoning behind it, obviously, but it cannot be compared to prohibiting firearms from people on university campuses who otherwise carry legally off university campuses.

[Falcon]

Society decided that at 16 a person can start taking on the responsibilities of driving.  Society decided that at 19 you can possess a handgun.  etc.
There is some reasoning behind it, obviously, but it cannot be compared to prohibiting firearms from people on university campuses who otherwise carry legally off university campuses.

Society also decided that carrying firearms on university campuses is prohibited. There is some reasoning behind that, obviously.

[CrAz3D]

But I'm arguing that it was the wrong reasoning ... I'm not arguing that 10 year olds should buy beer.

[Falcon]

From what I read, a lot of good points have been brought up that supports the prohibition of firearms on campuses, but you either completely dismiss them as irrelevant, or keep repeating that personal protection is more important than anything else.

[iago]

People under 18 are the responsibility of their parents ... sure that's only under American law and that the law of humanity suggests that we all have a right to protect ourselves, but there is a point at which society chooses to say "you can't make wise decisions" regardless of whether the kids actually can.

Why not lower the driving age to 10?  The drinking age to 15?  Society decided that at 16 a person can start taking on the responsibilities of driving.  Society decided that at 19 you can possess a handgun.  etc.
There is some reasoning behind it, obviously, but it cannot be compared to prohibiting firearms from people on university campuses who otherwise carry legally off university campuses.

Your arguments for university students to carry gun is that it's a matter of life and death -- safety vs being sitting ducks. It sounds beneficial to me.

The benefits of younger people driving or drinking is pure convenience/fun, it's not a matter of being a sitting duck. Sounds to me like it'd be a different argument.

[rabbit]

My niece is in danger.  She needs a handgun and a concealed carry permit.

Please ignore the fact that she is a month old.  She is in danger.  She could be the victim of a random shooting anytime, anywhere.  She needs a gun.

[MyndFyre]

My niece is in danger.  She needs a handgun and a concealed carry permit.

Please ignore the fact that she is a month old.  She is in danger.  She could be the victim of a random shooting anytime, anywhere.  She needs a gun.

Making ridiculous arguments 1.) doesn't serve the intellectual discussion, 2.) doesn't serve your side of the argument, and 3.) just makes CrAz3D continue to act like a total fucking douchebag moron.

[CrAz3D]

I agree with MyndFyre, especially on item #3

[Joe]

If you don't understand why. GO BACK AND READ MY FUCKING POSTS. I explained 5 times why it's relevant. FIVE!! I'm not doing it again!

I didn't know it was possible for iagi to act like this. What should we number the "killer iagi"?

[Sidoh]

I didn't know it was possible for iagi to act like this. What should we number the "killer iagi"?

Hm, I'm guessing that's iagi #0.  He remains dormant except when approached by one of the crazata.

[Warrior]

thats one angry fellow

[rabbit]

Making ridiculous arguments 1.) doesn't serve the intellectual discussion, 2.) doesn't serve your side of the argument, and 3.) just makes CrAz3D continue to act like a total fucking douchebag moron.

Why haven't you said that to CrAz3D yet?

[MyndFyre]

Making ridiculous arguments 1.) doesn't serve the intellectual discussion, 2.) doesn't serve your side of the argument, and 3.) just makes CrAz3D continue to act like a total fucking douchebag moron.

Why haven't you said that to CrAz3D yet?

Because I don't even bother reading his bullshit.

[CrAz3D]

Making ridiculous arguments 1.) doesn't serve the intellectual discussion, 2.) doesn't serve your side of the argument, and 3.) just makes CrAz3D continue to act like a total fucking douchebag moron.

Why haven't you
 said that to CrAz3D yet?

Because I don't even bother reading his bullshit.

You and me both brotha

[Explicit]

Because I don't even bother reading his bullshit.

By far the most logical post in this entire thread.

MyndFyre wins, hands down.

[CrAz3D]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

[rabbit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

Sorry, we're all in Pakistan.

[MyndFyre]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

Sorry, we're all in Pakistan.

Oh, I see.  Media says something that you don't agree with, so you don't watch it.  You don't attempt to make any kind of educated argument against it, you just pout.  Effective!  I feel swayed by your unmoving standpoint.

[iago]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

I like the graph they showed:



Reminds me of...

2) When guns are initially banned, even if there is an amnesty on turning them in, there will almost certainly be a rise in gun crimes in the short term, for the reasons that you said. However, if it's difficult to obtain them for a long period of time, I think that crime will fall. Guns don't last forever. Is a short period of more pain worth a long period of less pain? Dunno.

In fact, it exactly follows the pattern I suggested. I'd be interested to see where those numbers are in 15 - 20 years from now.


As to the video itself, it basically repeats what pro-gun people always say, doesn't counter any of the standard counter-arguments.

[CrAz3D]

In the short term?  I don't see how banning guns in 1975 and crime rising steadily for 15 years and then SPIKING DRAMATICALLY is a "rise in the short term."

[Sidoh]

In the short term?  I don't see how banning guns in 1975 and crime rising steadily for 15 years and then SPIKING DRAMATICALLY is a "rise in the short term."

You clearly don't think like an economist.

[iago]

In the short term?  I don't see how banning guns in 1975 and crime rising steadily for 15 years and then SPIKING DRAMATICALLY is a "rise in the short term."

Human civilization is tens of thousands of years old. You said that a gun could easily last a few decades. I'd call 15 years a short term rise. That's simply semantics.

In any case, I wouldn't trust the scale on the map -- it seems to have more than one 1995 and 2002. My point is that it totally lined up with the pattern that I reasoned.

[CrAz3D]

That's not gun crimes, that's violence that they mentioned in the video.  Being that there are naturally going to be fewer guns available it seems interesting that violence would spike like that.

It isn't gun crimes (like possession), they mentioned violence.

[topaz~]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/09/gun.ban.ruling/index.html

[CrAz3D]

That case is set to be ruled on in Marchof this year in the Supreme Court

[rabbit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

Sorry, we're all in Pakistan.

Oh, I see.  Media says something that you don't agree with, so you don't watch it.  You don't attempt to make any kind of educated argument against it, you just pout.  Effective!  I feel swayed by your unmoving standpoint.

Go buy a sense of humor, commie!  I didn't have time to watch it, and what's more, all he did was post a link.  No short little sentence or anything about it, just a link to a video.  He didn't even embed it!

[iago]

That's not gun crimes, that's violence that they mentioned in the video.  Being that there are naturally going to be fewer guns available it seems interesting that violence would spike like that.

It isn't gun crimes (like possession), they mentioned violence.

I would expect them to follow the same thread, based on my logic.

[CrAz3D]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_QjEL0uUgo

*tear*, it's beautifully true

[rabbit]

Except...in all of those cases concealed carry or open carry wouldn't have mattered.  In fact, open carry would probably have prevented it in the first place.

[CrAz3D]

I like open carry more, too.



Being that he didn't really talk about the exact specifics of each case it's amusing that you can jump to a conclusion without knowing the facts.

[iago]

All his arguments seem to be about why the prison system sucks, coupled with him clearly being a violent person.

[CrAz3D]

And how we have the right to protect ourselves.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvV3gr_vinE

[rabbit]

Well, it doesn't matter, because by the sound of it, in each case, they never got wrist control, which is step 1 in self defense

[iago]

And how we have the right to protect ourselves.

He SAID that, but none of his arguments led to that. They all said, "the prison system doesn't works, so we should kill criminals ourselves". That's it.

There's a difference between saying something and proving/defending something. One is rhetoric, and the other is argument.

[CrAz3D]

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/61167.html
Bill Richardson voted against the original assault weapon ban !

At that time he was the Rep. of the the most liberal House district in our state.  Really, Richardson is one Democrat I would DEFINITELY vote for over McCain ... too bad he didn't keep going .

[CrAz3D]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8

heh!

So true, so true.

[GS2xx]

Well the right to bear arms doesn't mean criminals should shoot people, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Nobody should need to carry anything more than a stun gun for protection, and a rifle to hunt.

[CrAz3D]

Ideally you don't need anything for protection ... but if I ever need something for protection I definitely want something more than a stun gun