• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas Senate approves guns in college classrooms


I actually think I'm meeting your tone equally. but the point is that you need to understand what is being said. The fact is we shoot ourselves more than we shoot criminals. Alleged non shootings don't change these numbers. Of those actually shot, we shoot ourselves more often. That's verifiable fact.

Now, there are many problems with calling up people and asking them if they successfully defended themselves with a weapon. we have no way of knowing how honest they are, but we do know, and this was also posted, that the large number the survey reports is inconsistent with the numbers of crimes committed. So, there is real reason to don't those numbers.

And no, my numbers are based on actual shootings and not a poll of what someone thinks. So, no they are not equally dubious.

As for half the country, new information btw, please show me numbers of any study done on those. I've been unable to find any, but would welcome viewing any you or Ikari can show.
 




Try again.


As for half the country, new information btw, please show me numbers of any study done on those. I've been unable to find any, but would welcome viewing any you or Ikari can show.

The map I posted is compiled using information on each state’s actual gun laws, not a random study. Check ‘em out if you’re confused.
 
Try again.

That's actually another question and a diversion on your part. it doesn't dispute the numbers, but tries to minimalize the meaning of them. So, I think you should try again.



The map I posted is compiled using information on each state’s actual gun laws. Check ‘em out if you’re confused.

Not confused at all. I asked for more. I asked for a study, perhaps a comparison, or any actual school numbers at all.
 
That's actually another question and a diversion on your part. it doesn't dispute the numbers, but tries to minimalize the meaning of them. So, I think you should try again.

I'm waiting for you to demonstrate that campuses which allow guns are more dangerous, have more shootings, etc. than those which do not. Because that's the dynamic at hand, and this has been your entire diversionary argument on the subject. I find it ironic you're calling out other peoples diversionary tactics and claiming they have to meet numbers when you engage similarly. As it stands, the Universities which allow guns do not suffer and more or less crime because they allow guns on campus. As I have stated since the beginning of the thread, it's really a non-factor as students on the whole won't carry guns on them.

But if you ever choose to abandon the diversions and guesses for your point and address instead reality, let me know.
 
That's actually another question and a diversion on your part. it doesn't dispute the numbers, but tries to minimalize the meaning of them. So, I think you should try again.

My, my, what a convenient way of ignoring anything that doesn't support your opinion. It's relevant because you claim that gun accidents are a terrible problem and guns are inherently more dangerous to their owners than anyone else. This appears to be your basis for claiming that guns should not be allowed on a college campus. I believe what I posted pretty effectively refutes your premise, however, since it does that, I can see why you'd try to shrug it off and just claim it was a "diversion."





Not confused at all. I asked for more. I asked for a study, perhaps a comparison, or any actual school numbers at all.

It's a flawed debate argument to ask someone to prove a negative; to state that I should have to prove how many incidents have NOT happened. The burden of proof is on you, since you are making the claim that campuses are more dangerous when students can carry. I've shown you that campuses in 26 states allow some form of carry on their grounds. That should give you a fairly large data pool with which to prove how much more dangerous the campuses have become. Perhaps you could even post pictures of various campus common areas bathed in blood to support your argument, since that's what apparently would be destined to happen if students could carry, according to the anti-gun crowd.
 

No, not ignoring. I have not at all claimed gun accidents are more than car accidents. I have not argued anything about them other than we shoot ourselves more than we shoot criminals. So, don't add anything to my claim that is not there. To dispute my claim, you have to show my numbers inaccurate. You nor anyone else has done that.




It is flawed to ask for a negative, but not what I've done. I've asked for any studeis done at all. No matter what they say.
 

I have presented evidence to back my concerns. As no studies have been done on campus YET, I can't produce what hasn't been done. Where we differ is that I beleive we can draw some conclusions based on other information. You don't think so. In the future we will likely see which one of us was right.
 



Your math is 16,000 > 80,000. I don't think I really have to dispute that. To play Devil's Advocate, even IF I were more likely to shoot myself than a criminal, how does that affect your campus?


It is flawed to ask for a negative, but not what I've done. I've asked for any studeis done at all. No matter what they say.

It's not my job to prove your argument, the burden is still on you. Let me explain this as simply as possible. You claim that campuses with guns will become more dangerous. You've been asked to prove that assertion and have, to this point, done nothing of the sort. It's not up to your opposition to prove wrong a hypothesis that you can't even support to begin with. Do your own research. :lol:


...and I presented evidence to the contrary. If this was a glaring problem on our campuses, don't you think one of the rabid anti-gun groups would be brimming full of BS studies to attempt to show how dangerous these gun-friendly colleges were now? Their silence should tell you something.

I too believe we can draw conclusions based on other information, for example, the 26 states that allow campus carry without noticeable issue... You don't seem to want to address that though.
 
Last edited:

Except that I live on a campus which allows guns, and there is no ill effect. There is no reported cases of ill effect from any of the other 10's of Universities which allow guns on campus. There is data, it's just not what you want. So you continue to engage in deflection to avoid dealing with the fact that thus far in reality all Universities which allow guns have seen no net increase nor decrease in crime rates and are not significantly different in "safety" from any other University which does not allow guns. You've used generalized statistics about gun ownership, yet if what you say is true we should have seen several cases of this already in University, yet there are no reports of such having occurred. Why do you think that is so? The most probable explanation is that guns on campus have little effect on overall safety rates.
 
Your math is 16,000 > 80,000. I don't think I really have to dispute that. To play Devil's Advocate, even IF I were more likely to shoot myself than a criminal, how does that affect your campus?

Agian, the 80,000 number does nto refer to people actually shot. And it is dubious in nature as no one can show it is a true number.

And if they are more likley to shoot themselves, and they are, having one is a greater risk than not having one. And if they make poor decisions overall, this is one more area inw which they will likley make a poor decision. If you look up accidental shooting involiving college students, you can find examples of them shooting themselves (often at their faternity houses).




I never said it was. I merely point out your map wasn't really evidence, and offered you the chnace to shwo anything you had.


No haven't. Nor have I used the words a glaring problem. I said it will happen. And I said that happening once, in a large area, will bring the laws back. It's not a question of numbers, it's a question of unnecssary risk. Parents and schools are very sensitive to these issues. It will only take one well publicized event.
 

So far. And you may never see it. But that won't help those when it does happen somewhere. It is merely a risk without need.
 
So far. And you may never see it. But that won't help those when it does happen somewhere. It is merely a risk without need.

A false perception of risk is not evidence enough to allow restriction of a right. It's quite simple, really. By definition, I don't have to demonstrate a need to exercise a right and that's where your hypothetical argument falls short.
 
A false perception of risk is not evidence enough to allow restriction of a right. It's quite simple, really. By definition, I don't have to demonstrate a need to exercise a right and that's where your hypothetical argument falls short.

I have a solution

those who are scared of carrying weapons should not

those of us who are competent should be able to do so

problem solved
 
So far. And you may never see it. But that won't help those when it does happen somewhere. It is merely a risk without need.

No, the risk is restricting our rights when there is no need to. You make this call for government force againt the rights and liberties of others based on nothing more than your feelings and guesses. Yet in every REAL WORLD scenario wherein guns have been allowed on campus, we've seen nothing that you continue to suggest would happen if students were to carry guns. So who here is wrong? You or reality?
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…