- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The invitation to offer a fact-based argument remains open.
Gun issues aren't based on facts for either side. Some people just fetishize the idea of guns, and others have a (far more rational) aversion to being surrounded by them. If I showed a study that argued for gun control, gun lobbyists would just say it doesn't matter because 18th century farmers thought everyone should have the right to a single-shot barrel-loaded musket. And there are other studies that argue against gun control, but they don't change the fact that I and many others find the idea of turning our communities into armed camps to be the opposite of liberating.
Texas is not trying to put guns on college campuses because they sat down with the data and made a high-minded analysis about what would be best for college students, they just like guns, like the idea of guns being everywhere, and enjoy trying to push them into places that have traditionally resisted them. That's all there is to it. It's a bad state that does a lot of bad, dehumanizing things to its people, and it goes further through the Looking Glass every day.
What I'm trying to say is I believe you misunderstand the right. It is not absolute. It can be restricted and has been since the first days of this country.
With campus violence on the rise as it is, I think that if I was going to college in this day and age, that I would arm myself. Simply put, I think it would be easier for me to look back and say “boy I'm glad I never needed to use it” then to be laying in a hospital bed (or worse) and be saying I wish I would have had a weapon.The study examined all reported incidents of “targeted violence” since 1900 and found that 60 percent of the 272 cases of college violence have occurred in the last 20 years. About 30 percent of the total number of reported cases occurred between 2000 and 2008, the study said.
Very true, but rights can not be restricted arbitrarily. In order for your right to be restricted, it must infringe on someone els's right. If you had reviewed my link to the critically relevant SCOTUS ruling you would have been able to articulate a fact-based and informed objection.
Me carrying a gun you never know is there doesn't affect you in any way.
Heh, in fact, my carrying a gun you never knew was there while remodeling your kitchen/bathroom didn't hurt you either :mrgreen:
I think it's kind of like what your call an infringement. Schools rightly don't want the risk. You may not think that is infringing on their rights, but they may disagree, knowing their population.
BTW, do you believe everyone is as responsible as you?
In any case, if I knew you had a gun while remodeling my kitchen, I'd have fired you and gotten someone else.
The invitation to offer a fact-based argument remains open.
I'm sure others will point to collage rape, Virginia Tech, and the right of everyone to have a firearms in their home (and should therefore be allowed to have a firearm if they live on campus) so I'll go another direction.
If I understand you correctly, no one should bring anything to class they're not going to use. What I would like to know is, if it's not disruptive and it's not going to harm you, why should you care?
The rapes are not done in the classroom or in the parking lot going to class. And I know very few professionals who think students being armed would have helped with VT. In fact, an expert on the matter came and trained us after the incident, as people were rightly concerned, and they said not only no to the idea, but HELL NO.
But school is a specific place with a specific purpose. Many actually control your cell phone for example, as they should. And there is far less risk with a cell phone than a gun. A gun is a tool, and it is used for specific purposes. There is no one in the classroom for that purpose.
The data presented in the Harvard study showed exactly that, though, as did my other source. Even if you don't personally carry, you are safer when you are in an armed population.
No, I read it and it didn't. The Harvard study showed next to know difference they could prove. They understand causal relationship errors which is why they did not make the leap you do. They did not claim you were safer. Nor did they claim you were less safe.
Well to be fair I don't think anyone will be hunting bear with the class of weapons we're talking about. My concealed carry is a snub-nosed .38 revolver, good only at near point-blank range. It's the 3" folding knife of firearms. I also carry a 3" folding knife.
Neither is needed.
In fact, there are a number of ways to carry concealedeace
Ways but no real purpsoe for it.
True story: At Dakota Tech I wore a blue rubber training pistol in a CCW holster (inside the waistband, t-shirt untucked, for those curious) for a couple weeks. No one ever noticed, or if they did, they didn't care. I would assume that if anyone thought I was carrying a real firearm that they would have said something either to me or to the proper authorities. If they held my political opinion on the matter, they would at least ask why I was carrying a trainer in due coarse of making small-talk.
They may have said something to someone else, because who wants to talk to someone with a gun. :shrug:
However, I did ask my class tonight, and out of 25, found only one who thought it was a good idea. He was in his mid twenties. Both my over 50 students, one male and one female, thought it was a bad idea, and woudl not come to class with weapons allowed. And none of the traditional age students thought it was a good idea. I just asked to see. Too small a group for any kind of statisitcal data, but thought it was interesting.
Based on what evidence?
CCW holders? Yes, if not more so.
As is your right.
Common sense and knowing your population. Not to mention liability concerns.
The rapes are not done in the classroom or in the parking lot going to class. And I know very few professionals who think students being armed would have helped with VT. In fact, an expert on the matter came and trained us after the incident, as people were rightly concerned, and they said not only no to the idea, but HELL NO.
But school is a specific place with a specific purpose. Many actually control your cell phone for example, as they should. And there is far less risk with a cell phone than a gun. A gun is a tool, and it is used for specific purposes. There is no one in the classroom for that purpose.
No, I read it and it didn't. The Harvard study showed next to know difference they could prove. They understand causal relationship errors which is why they did not make the leap you do. They did not claim you were safer. Nor did they claim you were less safe.
Neither is needed.
Ways but no real purpsoe for it.
They may have said something to someone else, because who wants to talk to someone with a gun. :shrug:
However, I did ask my class tonight, and out of 25, found only one who thought it was a good idea. He was in his mid twenties. Both my over 50 students, one male and one female, thought it was a bad idea, and woudl not come to class with weapons allowed. And none of the traditional age students thought it was a good idea. I just asked to see. Too small a group for any kind of statisitcal data, but thought it was interesting.
Anyway, there's a nice factual argument for you.
You shot down your own point by admitting there was only a mere possibility of a vague correlation, and that you could not prove causality. I see nothing in that post I need to debate.
Umm, no. There is not a "mere possibility of a vague correlation," there is a correlation, period. That's what it means when two facts are related to a third fact. And my noting that it's a correlation rather than a causal proof is what's known as "honest discussion." I know this is an alien concept to the NRA and its affiliated constituencies, but we here in Reality Land like to offer information as it is rather than just make things up to justify what we wish were the case.
Now, this is your thread, and you want this to be about statistics rather than moral/ethical arguments, so I gave you some. But rather than dealing with those facts - i.e., trying to come up with alternative explanations for the correlation - you simply dismiss it because you find it inconvenient. This is what we call "dishonest debate tactics," as contrasted with the concept of "honest discussion" I mentioned earlier. Credibility means a lot here in Reality Land, but I will respect whatever cultural differences may cause people from other places to consider it not worth having.
A cell phone is disruptive, a concealed pistol is not. Please demonstrate the need to infringe on someone's right to be secure in their person.
I was careful to say "the data in the study", not "the study". Please redress your argument accordingly.
That doesn't matter, though. Rights are shall-issue privileges, which means that unless you can "show cause" to withhold the right, it 'shall be issued'. As the Harvard study concluded, the 'burden of proof' is on you to show why people should not be allowed to carry.
The purpose is to posses on your person a weapon in such a manner where no one knows you have it.
Uh, the cops :lol: Carrying a firearm in a school zone is a felony in my state.
Oh, very good. Please disclose your real identity, credentials, methods of collecting data and demographic data of your surveyed sample for publishing.
Common sense and knowing your population. Not to mention liability concerns.
Again, there is cause. It's a liability issue, a needless risk, with no place for it in the HS.
It is if someone shoots themself. I once saw a student hurt herself with a shot put. In the classroom. Imagine if it were a gun she mishandled.
The data without interpretation doesn't mean anything. It's just numbers. That's why Harvard didn't reach the conclusions you do. Statistics do not speak for themself.
Again, there is cause. It's a liability issue, a needless risk, with no place for it in the HS.
Many wouldn't go that far.
There are those here who know who I am, having seen a newpaper artcile featuring me. I'm a teacher at a cummunity college. However, if you read what I wrote, please pay attention to what I was careful to include: Too small a group for any kind of statisitcal data, but thought it was interesting.
What I'm trying to say is I believe you misunderstand the right. It is not absolute. It can be restricted and has been since the first days of this country.
I think it is beyond reasonable doubt. We know with almost certainty that sooner or later someone will make a mistake. The history is fairly clear on this and the maturity level.
Like I said, I taught at a school voted the second most violent campus in America. And the need never came up for anyone to need a gun. To be honest, I think it so clear, so rooted in commone sense that asking for proof is like asking for proof that driving drunk is a bad idea. But, I have given proof of the maturity level, and I see no evidence of anyone needing a gun on campus.
You keep saying this, but you have nothing to back it up with. What is the risk? How much is it? Do you understand that this is a major flaw in your arugment? Does it penetrate your skull that when you say it is a needless risk that maybe you should quantify the risk. If I get rid of guns on my campus today, how much lower is the probability that I will be killed that day? How much? Can you answer it? Because if you say it is a risk then it must have some effect on my overall probabilities of death on any given day. So, what is it? How much are my probabilities lowered by removing guns on my campus?
You can't say anything in any amount of quantifiable assertion. And yet you want us to accept infringments against the rights of the individual based on your flawed, incomplete, and illogical argument? You can't be f'n serious.
As is your right.In any case, if I knew you had a gun while remodeling my kitchen, I'd have fired you and gotten someone else.
someone will make a mistake.
I taught at a school voted the second most violent campus in America
Did you ever think that if the teachers were armed there might have been less violence against the teachers and the students? You can’t possibility tell us that the teachers were never attacked or threatened. I personally know a teacher that was molested and threatened on a regular basses. If she had shot the first student that grabbed her breast the other thugs would have been less likely to touch any of the teachers.
Anybody with a carry permit should be aware and familiar with this and realize that although government buildings are the subject of this law there are laws for other "public" areas. One thing must be borne in mind though. If that is so it is "reasonable" to understand that the courts in any Second Amendment challenge to a law restricting or limiting possession of firearms in 'private' buildings/facilities/areas would be inclined to uphold such as in the "public interest", because that interest overrides any individual right.(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly
possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous
weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility),
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than 1 year, or both.
(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon
be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes
to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal
facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of
subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal
facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon,
or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as
provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to -
(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer,
agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political
subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or
supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or
prosecution of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a
Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such
possession is authorized by law; or
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons
in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful
purposes.
(e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly
possesses or causes to be present a firearm in a Federal court
facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title,
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described
in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d).
(f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the
United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or
orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of
weapons within any building housing such court or any of its
proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building.
(g) As used in this section:
(1) The term "Federal facility" means a building or part
thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal
employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing
their official duties.
(2) The term "dangerous weapon" means a weapon, device,
instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is
used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious
bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket
knife with a blade of less than 2 1/2 inches in length.
(3) The term "Federal court facility" means the courtroom,
judges' chambers, witness rooms, jury deliberation rooms,
attorney conference rooms, prisoner holding cells, offices of the
court clerks, the United States attorney, and the United States
marshal, probation and parole offices, and adjoining corridors of
any court of the United States.
(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be
posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal
facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted
conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court
facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under
subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such
notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had
actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.
My question to you is...[sarcasm]Did you immediately, if not sooner, demand of the school administration that they ban shot-put balls in all classrooms and initiate a petition to that effect?:idea:[/sarcasm]Originally Posted by Boo Radley
It is if someone shoots themself. I once saw a student hurt herself with a shot put. In the classroom. Imagine if it were a gun she mishandled.
I'm a Second Amendment guy too, but I realize there can be legitimate limitations. Those limitations, can be tested in court by constitutional challenge. Public law, in this case, USC 930 Section 18, titled Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities, states:
Anybody with a carry permit should be aware and familiar with this and realize that although government buildings are the subject of this law there are laws for other "public" areas. One thing must be borne in mind though. If that is so it is "reasonable" to understand that the courts in any Second Amendment challenge to a law restricting or limiting possession of firearms in 'private' buildings/facilities/areas would be inclined to uphold such as in the "public interest", because that interest overrides any individual right.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?