Concealed weapons: good/bad?

[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?