Should colleges allow bearing arms?

[brien]

And if I had to go to court, I wouldn't go to yours. To each their own

You wouldn't even know that the judge has the shotgun. Does the fact that the sheriff's deputies have sidearms bother you as well. If you have been in a courtroom, you have been in one that has firearms. So what's your point?

btw, when you are summoned to court, you don't have a choice as to whether you go or not. You must go.

Best course of action is tighter control on access to school grounds. Good fences and a couple of security guards would make a much greater difference than guns on campus

No argument with greater security. Are you so frightened of firearms you can't include them in the security programs as well. It would be foolish not to include them.

And that is your choice: if you do not want to go onto the college campus unarmed, do not go onto the college campus. It is a public place, but unlike high schools and courthouses, your presence on a college campus is never mandatory, never a right -- always a privilege and a choice. If you don't want to accept the corollaries of your choice, well, that's your choice, too

You won't know if I am armed.

And I'd rather not kill anyone

And neither would I. What would you do if it were a case of kill, or you would be killed?

I understand that he was defending himself, and his actions were not illegal

You said it.

Goetz as the perfect example of someone who went too far,

You don't know what Goetz was experiencing so to judge him in attempt to bolster your own argument is as wrong as it is disingenuous. Tell us about the terror he felt in his mind at the time when confronting those thugs. Please.

[ladyphoenix]

Quote by: another day That would not solve anything. Sure, if another guy decided to go nuts, he might get shot after he killed only a couple people, but in day to day life, I bet it would cause more isolated cases of violence, eg: drunken disputes turn into one guy getting shot, etc. When a gun is readily available it can become an option pretty quick. I say ban anyone who attends a school or college from owning a firearm. Very simple. Sure they can still get one illegally, but look at this cho guy...he was a loser with no friends. I doubt he had the connections to obtain a firearm on the street.

I sincerely disagree with this suggestion.

First of all, if drunken disputes end in someone getting shot, the shooter should be punished to the full extent of the law. It's very simple. There are laws on the books already for dealing with inappropriate use of firearms, I believe those laws are sufficient.

Banning someone who is in college from OWNING a firearm for no other reason than the fact that they go to school is a blatant violation of the rights of otherwise law abiding citizens. Should we ban all postal workers from owning firearms because a couple of them went nuts and killed people? No. That would be just about as absurd.

There are two issues to deal with here. 1) I have a right to life and liberty and the right to protect such with deadly force if necessary, and 2) you are suggesting we use a totally arbitrary and unjustifiable means with which to deprive me of the right to defend myself. To judge me by what I "might" do would contradict every principal this nation was founded on, like the rule of law, innocent until proven guilty, and my right to bear arms.

I'm not willing to sacrifice any of those principals for a false sense of security, period. I'm curious why so many of you are eager to do so.

[brien]

how about you all just trial and error with the lives of your students, both in high school and college.

The same could be said about cars and drivers licenses. Let's ban cars..:rolleyes: This is a ruse that ignores the fact that people kill other people.

[Praxius]

Quote by: ladyphoenix Praxius, you're really starting to annoy me. The PERSON who ORIGINALLY SAID WAS YOU, as I said, in post #27, before the post you mentioned, REGARDLESS of the context in which it may have been qutoed in post #28. YOU wrote those words. YOU DID. Not me, not the person who quoted you in the post after yours, YOU did. Knock of the ignorant act, it's not going to fly.

Then you have no clue as to what sarcasim is, and you made one big argument over nothing..... Yes, I said it... in a sarcastic manner... and someone agreed with it... so in a sense they said it too.... so there you go..... once again... nit picking.

Lastly, your attacks are personal. Perhaps you don't understand the nature of a personal attack, for the purposes of debate. Let me explain. For example: Both quotes above are veiled ad homs intended to make me look incompetent, and both were in response to direct quotes of mine. Perhaps you don't understand how insulting someone who is challenging you LOGICALLY (as opposed to personally) does nothing to help your argument. I hope this helps clear that up for you.

Grow a thicker skin. You have been quoting me just as much, however the problem is, you're not comprehending what I am trying to say to you, so the more simpiler I make my explinations, the more offended you get..... if you want, I could go back to my less detailed posting and end up having to answer all your questions again and again... getting nowhere..... at least now I'm starting to feel some progress.

If you felt the saying "Carry you by the hand" was insulting.... then perhaps you should look at the thread so far, and how much explaining I have had to do on past posts in this thread alone, rather then progressing further with other tangents of the debate...... I am telling you how I see it.... and right now I am carrying you by the hand with everything I say..... if you feel that is to imply your incompetent, you said it, not I.

As for my comment about how I hate it when people assume and don't pay attention to what is said, is true..... I hate it.... and if it applies to you, then you once again.... you said it.... I just used the quote as an example.

Once again.... stop thinking everything is against you and grow a thicker skin..... I'm posting towards you just like I post towards anybody else here.... if I feel the topic is getting redundant like it is, I'll be sure to let you know... as I have.

You've not made a single valid argument in this thread. You've done nothing throw out wild and absurd hypotheical situations that have no basis in reality. Show me something LOGICAL, perhaps take a course in "treatment of others" and we'll have a chat.

Such a hypocrite..... who's the one here who's be back peddeling to past posts and trying to analyze them to the point they loose all meaning and making me have to repost everything so you can understand what's been said? The only reason I may not have any valid argument here in this thread is because I keep having to explain things to you.

I have expressed my opinion and my view on this topic already and it's more valid then some, but I already tried to explain that you and other's like you won't listen to it, so it is pointless.... as I said.... go ahead.... load you're kids up with firearms when they goto school.... (Sorry... I'll be more specific for you.... College Students) I don't care anymore.......

However, I'll be the only one laughing when there's plenty more students dead and you guys are still asking "what can we do?" or "Where did we go wrong?" ~ Mind you I won't be laughing at the student's misfortune... I'll be laughing because I saw it coming.... and I have also discused this with others around where I live, and they all laughed at the idea of allowing firearms in schools.... Not one person agreed with the idea.... so I would guess it's a cultural thing.

So culture your kids in the way of looking over their shoulders 24/7.....

[Praxius]

Quote by: brien No argument with greater security. Are you so frightened of firearms you can't include them in the security programs as well. It would be foolish not to include them.

Ah.... catch 22 here..... earlier it was said Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and now you are trying to explain a situation where there should be a level of fear towards firearms? I myself don't have a fear of firearms, but I do know not everybody out there knows what they're doing with firearms..... I don't trust people.... so instead of trying to remove the weapons in question from the people we don't trust, it's logical to arm up and just be another potiential shooter.... be that by misunderstanding, accident, or on purpose..... the more firearms you add to the equation, the greater the chances are that something bad will happen.... the greater the chances are that they will be shot, the greater chances there are of death..... this isn't fear mongering, this is commen sense.

Same thing with planes and driving a car.... the more there are, the greater the % of accidents to happen.... mix in random people with random education on driving or flying, and that risk get's higher..... Car's don't kill people.... people kill people..... so remove the danger from those people..... that's what licenses, registration, insurance, and training is for.... buddy from VT sure as hell had no ligitamate firearm background, ie: trained by a proffessional, or have a certificate that he is approved of safety course..... no.... all he needed was an ID and $600...... where is the logic in that?

You don't need a constitutional right to own a firearm for your protection..... that's the same thing as saying I have a right to walk down the road with my suit of armor and my sword for protection...... funny thing is where I live, I believe any blade that is longer then 6" is illegal.... so I can't walk around with a sword.... but a handgun is acceptable? Sheish.

You won't know if I am armed.

And you won't know I have a knife in my coat that is more effective in close quaters..... most don't realize they're stabbed or cut until it's too late. I have no need to pull out my pistol, cock the hammer (Depending on firearm) take the safety off, aim and shoot.... where as with my knife, I pull out my knife/it's done.

And neither would I. What would you do if it were a case of kill, or you would be killed?

Myself, I would worry about that when the time comes..... I suppose when you guys invade us, I should have a constitutional right to bare myself a tank? I mean... it's a case of kill or be killed, and if you got a bigger gun then I, then I need a bigger one then you..... So I'm gonna go grab myself a big tank and keep it on my front yard.... you know.... just in case.

The main thing here is.... if it's a case of being killed or killing someone.... there are no hypotheticals..... it is happening right there and right now.... even if I had a gun on me for protection, chances are I'd be using my hand to hand to take the guy out. Coming off as a person with no weapons at all is an advantage. It buys you extra time while the one with the gun is stalled with their superiority of having control over the situation.... you have time to view their faults and find a quick solution to the problem.....

If you're gonna get killed, your gonna get killed.... no matter what you have for protection.

In a case of kill or be killed.... I'm gonna kill... but I don't need a gun to kill.... that's just compinsation for inadiquacies in your own down falls.

Why is it that you're allowed to bare arms, but that only means firearms? What about other sources of defense? The whole world doesn't revolve around guns.... only governments and regims do who are sucked into the greed of money and power.... and that's all a gun pretty much represents in this topic.... power...... which is just a power of illusion.

[ladyphoenix]

Quote by: Praxius Such a hypocrite..... who's the one here who's be back peddeling to past posts and trying to analyze them to the point they loose all meaning and making me have to repost everything so you can understand what's been said? The only reason I may not have any valid argument here in this thread is because I keep having to explain things to you.

Backpeddling? BACKPEDDLING? Ha. I'm very well aware of the context in which you posted that quote. The point is that it is your quote. He was quoting you. You ask him whether he was agreeing with you or not. It didn't appear that he was to me. I still don't think he was. However, since I can't prove otherwise, let's just ask him.

Brien, in your post, numbered 28, the area at the bottom, where you directly quoted his comment about the biggest baddest cannons... Were you agreeing or asking for clarification of the statement? Just curious. This seems to be a point of contention here, and I'm quite the stickler for semantics. I just can't help myself sometimes. It's almost masochistic...

I have expressed my opinion and my view on this topic already and it's more valid then some, but I already tried to explain that you and other's like you won't listen to it, so it is pointless.... as I said.... go ahead.... load you're kids up with firearms when they goto school.... (Sorry... I'll be more specific for you.... College Students) I don't care anymore.......

You're problem is that you don't see adults as adults. Students are of all ages, and most of them are legally able to own firearms under any other normal circumstance. Oh, but you don't think anyone should ever own firearms, my bad.

However, I'll be the only one laughing when there's plenty more students dead and you guys are still asking "what can we do?" or "Where did we go wrong?" ~ Mind you I won't be laughing at the student's misfortune... I'll be laughing because I saw it coming.... and I have also discused this with others around where I live, and they all laughed at the idea of allowing firearms in schools.... Not one person agreed with the idea.... so I would guess it's a cultural thing. So culture your kids in the way of looking over their shoulders 24/7.....

Perhaps you live in a picture perfect society, you know, like Beaver Cleaver, and all... But we don't. You live in CANADA. Granted, you may be our neighbor, you are NOT an American. You know what goes on over here. You think that taking away our guns is going to cut down the number of rapes and muggings and carjackings that occur? Do you think that those rapists/muggers/carjackers aren't going to have guns because there's a law telling them they can't? Do you think that getting rid of guns is going to magically make kindnappings and child predators disappear? No. Nothing of the sort will happen. My child will need to look over her shoulder every day of her life whether we are an armed society or not. At least if she's armed she has a fighting chance.

I think that there are two things going on here. Your opinions, are just that, opinions. You've done nothing to back them up but try to cast aspersions on your opponent, instead of your opponent's argument. And I believe that your use of english leads me, and perhaps others, to misunderstand some of the things you say. I'm not entirely sure, but I've noticed some things that do cast into shadow my original interpretations of your posts. The only thing I can say here is be CLEAR. Don't say KIDS when you mean COLLEGE AGE ADULTS. It's kind of like you're trying to redefine the word "kid" to pull at my heartstrings or something, and it muddies your posts and all of our arguments in the process.

Thanks.

[brien]

And you won't know I have a knife in my coat that is more effective in close quaters..... most don't realize they're stabbed or cut until it's too late. I have no need to pull out my pistol, cock the hammer (Depending on firearm) take the safety off, aim and shoot.... where as with my knife, I pull out my knife/it's done

Oh please, Your "one upsmanship" is quite childish.

Why is it that you're allowed to bare arms, but that only means firearms?

It doesn't mean that at all.

[brien]

Brien, in your post, numbered 28, the area at the bottom, where you directly quoted his comment about the biggest baddest cannons... Were you agreeing or asking for clarification of the statement? Just curious. This seems to be a point of contention here, and I'm quite the stickler for semantics

I was looking for some evidence from Praxius that would support his statement that people want what he stated they wanted. And also for evidence that shows what people are using in this statement:the biggest, baddest hand cannon out there [b] and what: all these shooters are using for maximum damage and carnage

Praxius wrote

:"you should be allowed to have the biggest, baddest hand cannon out there to protect yourself, which all these shooters are using for maximum damage and carnage."

I hope this clears it up. I gotta go for the weekend now. It is really getting deep around here, and in other threads involving firearms. Have a nice weekend.

[ladyphoenix]

There you go, Praxus, just like I thought. You're mistaken. He wasn't agreeing with you.

So my claim still stands, no one in this thread has advocated the private ownership of large calibur automatic weapons anywhere in this thread.

[FIFI]

see below

[FIFI]

Quote by: brien Ok Substitute the word automobile for shotgun and would you ban cars? If it were me in that classrom, and I was under attack, you bet I wouuld have attempted to shoot that nut. Then either of two scenarios would develop. He would be dead or I would be dead. I would be willing to take that chance since he is was bent on killing me anyway. I refuse to give up my right to defend myself. They VT Police were no where to be found which mirrors the situation of response time generally in society.

Ok, first off...
Obviously, any drunk person is not to be trusted with anything that could be dangerous; ie, cars, GUNS, infants, nerve gas... it was just an example of whose hands the guns could be in.
secondly...
You speak from experience, or is this just a bravo dream? :rolleyes:
Non of us know what we would do in that situation, unless trained well, or have lived through such an experience. I am in no way saying I would be able to handle such a situation, but I would like to think so. But, in a panic, hailing your surroundings with bullets would have resulted in more death, not less.
and lastly,
Yes, the police made mistakes. Grave ones, I am not defending them, they are, however, conprised of humans, and humans error. But if i were trapt in a civilian riddled urban combat, I would trust the swat team with a gun... before the untrained citizen.

[fushigi]

Quote by: FIFI But, in a panic, hailing your surroundings with bullets would have resulted in more death, not less.

Oh, please. That's just not true. There's no question that those kids would have had better chances if they were armed. The problem is, these incidents are so rare as to not necessitate carrying a weapon for most people. Others may argue that mass gun carrying on college campuses would lead to mass carnage, but all we need to do is watch Utah (which just allowed carrying on campuses) to see if that dog can hunt.

Quote by: FIFI But if i were trapt in a civilian riddled urban combat, I would trust the swat team with a gun... before the untrained citizen.

So would I, and if there was a flash flood I'd rather be in a yacht than a rubber dinghy. But when the situation arises, you use what you got. And if you got nothing, you're defenseless.

Again, not saying this justifies every student going out and getting armed (although I'm sure many will now). Your chances of being a victim of a school shooting are still half as good as being struck by lightning.

fushigi

[Merlov01]

I'd say it would lead to more violence

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Praxius My only reason is I tend to reply to one person at a time in a thread, and I just forgot. A short and simple answer, without taking days to go over it with my colleagues to smooth out the plan, I would restrict weapons that would be not normally used for hunting or sport competitions..... You would not be allowed to carry a concealed weapon in public, ie: if you are pulled over or stopped by cops, if they find a firearm in your possesion, then that would be illegal. I could go further into this in more detail, however just saying what I already said above (As I already said above even further) I already know the responses to follow.... the questions that will come, and the same round about talking and talking that goes nowhere will continue. Tell you what..... Since someone quoted that they don't "Trial and Error" with the constitution and your rights to see if this would work.... how about you all just trial and error with the lives of your students, both in high school and college..... keep trial and erroring with them in the balance until you all figure out what you should do. You don't want to try and improve on your constitution because you don't know to true outcome of what will happen, (Trial and Error) then trial and error with slapping guns into the student's hands and we'll see what that outcome will be.... I gave you an option and just like republican generals, you ignore it and go about your own mind set.... as I said.... it's a pointless topic..... I'm now just posting for the simple reason to see if I'm right on how redundant this topic can get, lol.

You failed to answer the question about how that would have affected recent events.

As to what you define as "hunting and sport competitions", that should probably be more clearly defined. Those "assault rifles" that you've recently complained about are commonly used in "competition". Also, they are extremely valid hunting rifles for medium size game, 50-300 lbs. That would qualify for most game in North America with the exception of elk, moose and very large deer. Even 50 cal rifles are commonly used for very long range shooting competition.

Keith

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: brien You wouldn't even know that the judge has the shotgun. Does the fact that the sheriff's deputies have sidearms bother you as well. If you have been in a courtroom, you have been in one that has firearms. So what's your point?

You brought up your personal preferences as a way to bolster your argument, and my personal preference would be to avoid a courtroom in which a judge feels he must be armed. My point is no stronger or weaker than yours.

Quote by: brien btw, when you are summoned to court, you don't have a choice as to whether you go or not. You must go.

Thank you for defending my freedom from tyranny.

Quote by: brien No argument with greater security. Are you so frightened of firearms you can't include them in the security programs as well. It would be foolish not to include them.

Yes, I am that frightened of firearms. They do not give me any sense of security, and so I prefer not to have them as a means of improving security. Guns do not stop death, they cause it. I do not see an increase in deadliness as increased security -- mainly because I have trouble dividing human beings into allies and enemies.

Including firearms as a means of security on a public school campus sends a message to the students that I wholeheartedly disapprove of. So I would rather have slightly less security, and less evidence that violence is positive and appropriate around impressionable youth.

Quote by: brien You won't know if I am armed.

That doesn't help, brien.

Quote by: brien And neither would I. What would you do if it were a case of kill, or you would be killed?

Probably die. It would almost certainly be the same if I had a gun, since I am a coward, tend to overthink things, and have no experience with firearms.

Quote by: brien You don't know what Goetz was experiencing so to judge him in attempt to bolster your own argument is as wrong as it is disingenuous. Tell us about the terror he felt in his mind at the time when confronting those thugs. Please.

Calling them thugs doesn't make them any less human. And no amount of terror in Goetz's heart makes it okay for him to kill three people. So judging his experience has nothing to do with it. I could care less if he was scared. At this point, I'm a little scared of you -- does that give me the right to defend myself? Or am I still being disingenuous?

[The Decider]

Quote by: fushigi Oh, please. That's just not true. There's no question that those kids would have had better chances if they were armed. The problem is, these incidents are so rare as to not necessitate carrying a weapon for most people. Others may argue that mass gun carrying on college campuses would lead to mass carnage, but all we need to do is watch Utah (which just allowed carrying on campuses) to see if that dog can hunt.So would I, and if there was a flash flood I'd rather be in a yacht than a rubber dinghy. But when the situation arises, you use what you got. And if you got nothing, you're defenseless.

Then again, if a shooter knew an entire class was armed, he might elect to use a different means of attack. Brien suggested on another thread that strict gun control wouldn't deter suicide bombers, for example. Well, that argument could be made for the other extreme. A dedicated killer could easily download instructions for making simple, but effective, homemade bombs and suicide bomb vests. Iraq, one of the world's most heavily armed societies, regularly experiences such asymmetrical warfare attacks.

One could counter argue that bomb-making materials are difficult to procure and handle safely. True, but a dedicated killer could just as easily go to automatic weapons and pick venues with larger concentrations of crowds--like packed-stadiums for example. Or crowded beaches. A single gunman with an automatic weapon could wipe out dozens of beachgoers before anybody could get off a shot.

Then you have a third possibility--the gunman uses body armor available on the internet and gun shows. A few years back, two bank robbers in Northridge, California held off an army of policemen for over a half hour, with bullets bouncing off their armored torsos, heads, arms, and legs.

Arming students is not the answer (and I think you agree on this fushigi). Even if the body count might be lowered during these rare rampages, the number of gun related incidents in alcohol-soaked dorms will surely rise. Domestic disputes, a common occurrence on college campuses, will not get any more peaceful with Glock 9's in every room. And then you have the problem of identifying "the gunman" at a crime scene. With so many armed people, the police are bound to make mistakes and take down innocent people brandishing guns.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Calling them thugs doesn't make them any less human. And no amount of terror in Goetz's heart makes it okay for him to kill three people. So judging his experience has nothing to do with it. I could care less if he was scared. At this point, I'm a little scared of you -- does that give me the right to defend myself? Or am I still being disingenuous?

Goetz was directly threatened, that has never been questioned.

Brien has not directly threatened you. In fact, I doubt he would even know where to find you.

If he were to show up at your door and say he was going to use his guns on you, yes you would have the right to defend yourself.

Just because you have an irrational fear simply because he claims to own guns, no, you may not defend yourself.

If one were allowed to defend themselves just because they are afraid, you should probably start thinking about killing everyone. Most people in this country have ready access to knives in their homes. And knives can readily be used as weapons.

Keith

[fushigi]

Quote by: The Decider Arming students is not the answer (and I think you agree on this fushigi).

It's not the answer to what? The answer to shooting rampages on college campuses? Actually, I think arming the students WOULD reduce shooting sprees on campus, but there are two reasons this isn't necessary:

(1) Your chances of being a victim of a school shooting are still half as good as your chances of being bitten by a rattlesnake - according to this, our students have twice as much cause to carry anti-snakebite kits as firearms for their safety from crazed gunmen
(2) Armed students would just mean killers would use other methods to go on killing sprees. You mentioned suicide bombings and body armor - there are also many other ways - rat poison in the cafeteria food, sniper rifles from long distance, and so forth

Quote by: Decider Even if the body count might be lowered during these rare rampages, the number of gun related incidents in alcohol-soaked dorms will surely rise. Domestic disputes, a common occurrence on college campuses, will not get any more peaceful with Glock 9's in every room. And then you have the problem of identifying "the gunman" at a crime scene. With so many armed people, the police are bound to make mistakes and take down innocent people brandishing guns.

Only time will tell in Utah. Though I'm not sure how many Mormon college kids party with alcohol - anyone got data?