Concealed weapons: good/bad?

[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