PDA

View Full Version : I think women going to college should carry guns


Chiefmanwillcatch
03-11-2008, 12:32 AM
The girl who was abducted from her dorm. The hitchhiker who wasn't a college girl but was on a walk by herself.

Now these two coed hatecrime murders.

KCChiefsMan
03-11-2008, 01:02 AM
with the way things have been going, if I were still in college I'd seriously think about buying a pistol and carrying it with me to class

Chiefmanwillcatch
03-11-2008, 01:12 AM
It's getting crazy with the school shootings and carjackings.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2008, 01:15 AM
Yeah, great idea. :rolleyes:

There are over 20 million college students in the US.

I'm very sorry for this one person but I don't think that everyone should be armed. That won't solve anything and will more likely cause more problems.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-11-2008, 01:36 AM
That's just what I need.

I fail a student for writing a poor paper and she busts a cap in my ass.

F*cking awesome :banghead:

Thig Lyfe
03-11-2008, 01:41 AM
Link?

Baconeater
03-11-2008, 01:46 AM
Pepper spray.

Chiefmanwillcatch
03-11-2008, 02:28 AM
That's just what I need.

I fail a student for writing a poor paper and she busts a cap in my ass.

F*cking awesome :banghead:

Teachers should be armed also.

Chiefmanwillcatch
03-11-2008, 02:31 AM
Yeah, great idea. :rolleyes:

There are over 20 million college students in the US.

I'm very sorry for this one person but I don't think that everyone should be armed. That won't solve anything and will more likely cause more problems.

It's not just these 'two' students. It was Vtech too. There needs to be more armed security at schools and women need to carry and learn to defend themselves.

Chiefmanwillcatch
03-11-2008, 02:33 AM
Link?

http://raleigh2.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=1&twindow=&mad=&sdetail=612&wpage=1&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=&sc=2502&hn=raleigh2&he=.com

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336409,00.html

http://raleigh2.com/clients/raleigh2/3-8-2008-12-10-50-PM-1940210.JPGhttp://www.foxnews.com/images/350799/5_65_030808_auburnarrest.jpg

Zeke Ziggle
03-11-2008, 03:05 AM
It's not just these 'two' students. It was Vtech too. There needs to be more armed security at schools and women need to carry and learn to defend themselves.

I could be wrong but my natural reaction to almost all gun crimes and especially ones like V-tech is that there should be tighter gun control not people getting more guns. Arming more people won't lead to less gun crimes. But will lead to more gun injury/deaths.

ChiefaRoo
03-11-2008, 03:49 AM
I think women should stay home where it's safe and the hot ones should only be allowed to wear lingerie, sun dresses, and bikinis.

mikey23545
03-11-2008, 04:37 AM
Arming more people won't lead to less gun crimes. But will lead to more gun injury/deaths.

It would probably lead to more gun deaths among the psychos who right now get to open fire among flocks of unarmed sheep.

Otter
03-11-2008, 05:27 AM
I don't recall common sense being an prevalent commodity among undergraduates. Experimentation, binge drinking and lot's of intelligence but no wisdom, sure.

Common sense...not so much.

Just saying, maybe guns aren't such a good idea in that particular social circle.

DenverChief
03-11-2008, 05:37 AM
I don't recall common sense being an prevalent commodity among undergraduates. Experimentation, binge drinking and lot's of intelligence but no wisdom, sure.

Common sense...not so much.

Just saying, maybe guns aren't such a good idea in that particular social circle.


I guess it just depends on what college you go to really...I went to a mostly adult college with the majority of the student population in the late twenties to early forties age range.....I say as long as your are qualified* to carry a concealed weapon you should be allowed to on a college campus

*Qualified in Colorado means you can show
1. That you have no recent history of drug use/alcohol abuse
2. That you have no prior convictions of crimes of violence or felonies
3. That you are of sound mind
4. That you have been trained by a qualified firearms instructor in the proper use of a handgun (the NRA hunter safety course is not acceptable**)
5. That the Sheriff (or his appointee) after a 1 on 1 interview feels you are an acceptable candidate


**What is acceptable is
1. Proof of a handgun safety course
2. Service in the armed forces and proof of handgun training
3. Retirement from law enforcement
4. Prior service in law enforcement and proof of handgun training

DaKCMan AP
03-11-2008, 05:47 AM
Pepper spray.

Yep. A spray of mace/pepper spray to the eyes will do the trick. Absoluteley no need for a bunch of loaded guns around campus.

DaKCMan AP
03-11-2008, 05:51 AM
I could be wrong but my natural reaction to almost all gun crimes and especially ones like V-tech is that there should be tighter gun control not people getting more guns. Arming more people won't lead to less gun crimes. But will lead to more gun injury/deaths.

Shhh... we don't appreciate logic 'round hurr. What we hurr need is more guns. Every child should receive his or her first piece with his or her first happy meal. Guns guns guns for every man, woman and child! :rolleyes:

DenverChief
03-11-2008, 06:07 AM
liberal weenies







































ROFL

DenverChief
03-11-2008, 06:09 AM
I could be wrong but my natural reaction to almost all gun crimes and especially ones like V-tech is that there should be tighter gun control not people getting more guns. Arming more people won't lead to less gun crimes. But will lead to more gun injury/deaths.


look more gun laws only effect law abiding citizens...you could have had to most strict gun laws in the world and Va tech would have still happened, because CRIMINALS don't obey the law....where is the duh smiley?

DenverChief
03-11-2008, 06:14 AM
I have an idea, why don't we just build walls with razor wire around college campuses and put armed soldiers with metal detectors at the entrances and allow them to conduct on the spot strip searches at their will and leisure ...that would certainly stop the gun violence :rolleyes:

DaKCMan AP
03-11-2008, 06:23 AM
look more gun laws only effect law abiding citizens...you could have had to most strict gun laws in the world and Va tech would have still happened, because CRIMINALS don't obey the law....where is the duh smiley?

The problem with that logic is the psychos behind Columbine, Va Tech and many domestic killings are not prototypical "criminals". Often they're people who haven't been in and out of jail and who haven't committed crimes before. For whatever reason (outcast, mental instability, snapping) they go outside of normal behavior and become criminals. There isn't any way I'll buy that restricting access to firearms will increase, or increasing access to firearms will decrease, these types of tragedies.

suds79
03-11-2008, 07:03 AM
Where's pepper spray or a tazer when you need it.

Brock
03-11-2008, 07:22 AM
I have an idea, why don't we just build walls with razor wire around college campuses and put armed soldiers with metal detectors at the entrances and allow them to conduct on the spot strip searches at their will and leisure ...that would certainly stop the gun violence :rolleyes:

Why not, we do it at the airport.

Buehler445
03-11-2008, 07:30 AM
I personally believe there is no easy answer. And the ban guns and give evreyone a gun arguments are criminally generalized.

I personally believe that qualified people should be allowed to carry a gun if they so choose.

However, this problem isn't going to get any better until we as a society change what's important to us and instill in children what's important and chastise people who do stupid shit like this (as a society). So no one wants to be "that guy."

JMHO

Hog Rider
03-11-2008, 07:39 AM
Why don't we just make killing people illegal?
Or tighten our murder laws?

That will make them think twice, eh?

chasedude
03-11-2008, 07:57 AM
Giving all the girls in college a gun is not the answer. I like what others mentioned, pepper spray, tazor. I'm always for the non-lethal approach. Nothing lethal will come from a half drunk college girl fumbling through her purse for a condom and having her "pepper spray" going off. JMO

Radar Chief
03-11-2008, 08:05 AM
Arming more people won't lead to less gun crimes.

It has everywhere it's been tried. :shrug:

StcChief
03-11-2008, 08:12 AM
When guns are outlawed only Outlaws will carry guns

Radar Chief
03-11-2008, 08:19 AM
When guns are outlawed only Outlaws will carry guns

I carry a gun because I canít carry a cop. ;)

Radar Chief
03-11-2008, 08:27 AM
THE LIES ARE WORTH A SHOT

Monday, February 13, 2006


When you live in mortal fear of something like many gun control advocates do, it seems that nothing is off the table where debate (I use the term loosely) techniques are concerned. Even when there's little for them to use in the way of argument fodder, they'll take what there is and fold, bend, spindle and mutilate it to suit their needs at the time. On some occasions, when there's nothing at all to use they'll simply fabricate their "evidence." And, like so many falsehoods or misrepresentations, the more the lies are repeated, the more believable they become to the credulous members of the public.
Perhaps the best example of a lie turning accepted truth is the so-called Kellerman study. In limited research first published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine in 1986, Dr. Arthur Kellerman co-authored a study that claimed to have shown that having a gun in the home dramatically increased the likelihood that someone in the house would be shot with that gun. In fact, the report said it was 43 times more likely a gun owner would shoot and kill a family member than that he'd shoot and kill anybody else. Unfortunately for Dr. Kellerman and for ecstatic gun control advocates everywhere, the study has been thoroughly debunked ó repeatedly ó since then.
This didn't stop Dr. Kellerman from conducting more studies all of which showed that guns are bad, bad, bad (the fact that Kellerman is a staunch gun control advocate, of course, had nothing to do with his conclusions, and his refusal in the past to share data with other researchers for review is also meaningless where his motivations, methodology, and conclusions are concerned). And it certainly hasn't stopped gun control advocacy groups from continuing to quote one or another of Kellerman's dubious conclusions (among them: the Violence Policy Center, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and even the handy Gun Safety Guide published by About.com.).
Anti-gun media members ó who often also clearly have an axe to grind ó continue to cite Kellerman's work including the original thoroughly bogus study (The Japan Times used the "43 times more likely" quote as recently as January 9 of this year, and a February 3 editorial in National Catholic Reporter not only claims the "more likely" notion but says self defense instances are "statistically insignificant."). The more we read such things ó and the the more supposedly authoritative the source ó the more too many are inclined to buy whatever it is they're selling.
Author Michael Bellesiles became a hero to the anti-gun movement when he published a book detailing the research that "proved" guns were far less common in Colonial times than gun proponents would have everybody believe. The only problem with Bellesiles research was that the results were constructed from fabricated data. Bellesiles resigned from his job as a history professor at Emory University (coincidentally, that's the same University where Dr. Kellerman hangs his gun banning hat), lost a prize he'd won for his work, and was roundly spanked by an academic committee that pronounced him guilty of fraud (Bellesiles denies any such thing, denial apparently a hallmark of anti-gunners of all education levels and social strata).
Despite Bellesiles' very public fall from grace, the book remains available online and is still classified as non-fiction (his original and reputable publisher dropped him, but the book was snapped up by a smaller publishing company and promptly reprinted; Soft Skull also offers a multi-page response from Bellesiles to the many charges levied against him which, regardless of all of the evidence to the contrary, he continues to deny). If you don't bother to read the scathing reviews published at Amazon.com, you'd never know the book was questionable at best; at Powells.com, all of the reviews cited are glowing citations published prior to the revelations of fraud.
The point I'm making here is that, by repetition combined with a refusal to believe anything other than that which they'd prefer to believe, anti-gun advocates continue to forcefully press their case (and the more vocifierously they do so, the more uninformed followers they capture). It is their iron-willed stance that making guns illegal will solve all of our problems, and they're sticking to it. Not surprisingly, it turns out there's still more evidence they're wrong even in their overall fantasy that all will be well if only guns are banned.
A favorite piece of anecdotal "evidence" often offered up in favor of gun control has to do with Great Britain. We're told that crime rates are lower there than in America and that guns are illegal. Of course, it's entirely inappropriate to follow that up with the classic (and grievously mistaken) QED: Make guns illegal, and crime rates will be lower, but that's what they do. In the past, it was possible to argue that point with simple matters of statistics (of course there are fewer murders there; there are fewer people!) or methodology (nobody normed the numbers for lower European crime rates in general).
But now there's definitive and clear evidence that the suppositions are wrong. Just this month, a report out of England offered police statistics that cited rapidly increasing rates of violent crime, most particularly gun crimes. This in a place where guns are essentially banned! I'd be willing to bet you that this won't stop the anti-gun advocates from making the claims concerning outright gun bans that they always have, but it certainly offers an excellent refutation. And that refutation is going to be more necessary than ever thanks to some recent incidents of gun violence.
In California, a woman entered a Post Office processing center and started shooting. When she finished shooting former co-workers, she turned the gun on herself. Although police have yet to announce any motive, the one consistent story that's come out of the tragedy is that Jennifer San Marco had mental health problems. The gun that she used was, according to police, not hers. It was legally purchased and owned by someone else who police say isn't suspected of wrongdoing. Although they've not said more than that, it sounds very much like they believe San Marco stole the weapon.
There will be those who say that, if guns were illegal, the Goleta, California shootings wouldn't have occurred. They're wrong. It was illegal for San Marco to own a gun (because of her mental disability); it's illegal to steal. Yet San Marco broke both laws without a thought, and headed out to kill (which, by the way, is also illegal in most states). The law was immaterial to the shooter.
The law was, unfortunately, obeyed all too well by her victims. It's not legal to have firearms on US Post Office grounds. Yet if one person had been armed and been able to offer some protection to other employees, this tragic story could have proved less tragic. Making guns illegal, or even harder to obtain, will cause more incidents like this one not less. By ensuring criminals are safe to wreak havoc, they'll be more likely to do so. That's something the British know all too well, but that too many Americans can't or won't grasp.
In Massachusetts ó another state, by the way, where guns are difficult to obtain legally ó another violent crime was recently committed. In this case, a young man walked into a gay bar with a hatchet, a machete, and a handgun. After having a couple of drinks, he proceeded to launch an attack on several patrons. Eventually, he was captured by police in Arkansas, but not before he shot and killed an Arkansas State Highway Patrolman and a woman who was a passenger in his car, and engaged cops in a shoot-out during which he was critically wounded (he has since died from his wounds).
At the end of his rampage in the bar, Jacob Robida pointed the gun at the bartender and pulled the trigger (the gun didn't go off). But prior to that moment, the bar tender would likely have been able to stop Robida if he'd had the wherewithal to do so. Sadly, he wasn't carrying a handgun, nor did he have a shotgun handily stored beneath the bar. If he had, a West Virginia woman and an Arkansas man would still be alive today. As the gun control activists like to say, "If it saves just one life..." Well, a Massachusetts bartender might have saved two.
I can already hear the calls for more gun control in Massachusetts, for more laws that would stop things like this from happening. But consider: Robida was too young to drink legally, yet he walked into a bar and did so. It's illegal to have a gun in a bar, but he did. It's also against the law to attack people with hatchets or machetes, and he did that, too. It's a crime to assault anyone for hateful (based on race, sexual orientation, or other specified criteria) reasons in Massachusetts, yet that didn't stop Robida, either. Ask yourself: would one more law have mattered? The answer is obviously no, yet the anti-gun contingent will almost certainly come to another conclusion not because it's either correct or sensible, but because that's result they most want.
There is nothing that can be done to change the minds of the most rabid of the gun control advocates. They've made up their minds, and don't wish to be confused with the facts. But those who have been confused by misused, misstated, or manufactured "facts" are another story.
If we don't want still more blood shed, we need to ensure that the good guys have the opportunity for an effective defense should they choose to exercise it either on their own behalf or on the behalf of other innocents. If we intend to tend to our own safety and to preserve the crucial element of freedom that is offered by the guarantees of the Second Amendment, those of us concerned with the truth need to trouble ourselves to find it behind the obstacles anti-gun activists and media members are so good at constructing. And then, most importantly of all, it's up to us to spread it.

http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/157/3773/2006-02-13.asp?wid=157&nid=3773

Radar Chief
03-11-2008, 08:42 AM
The problem with that logic is the psychos behind Columbine, Va Tech and many domestic killings are not prototypical "criminals". Often they're people who haven't been in and out of jail and who haven't committed crimes before. For whatever reason (outcast, mental instability, snapping) they go outside of normal behavior and become criminals.

What if everyone else was armed also? Would they have gotten away with killing nearly as many as they did?

There isn't any way I'll buy that restricting access to firearms will increase, or increasing access to firearms will decrease, these types of tragedies.

Of course not. Youíve already made up your mind and will probably find some anecdotal evidence to justify your position. Problem with that is, all verifiable statistics point exactly too what youíre claiming is impossible.
Everywhere Concealed Carry has become law, violent crimes have dropped and everywhere guns are taken away from law abiding citizens violent crimes increase.
The article I link before this post has several interesting footnoted links to source data. One I found most interesting is a link to an article about the surge in violent gun crimes in the UK. Get that? A country that outlawed all guns is seeing a big increase in gun crimes.

Chiefnj2
03-11-2008, 08:50 AM
Guns in the hands of responsible adults is not the same as guns in the hands of binge drinking/drugging undergrads that are on their own for the first time in their lives.

Radar Chief
03-11-2008, 08:56 AM
Guns in the hands of responsible adults is not the same as guns in the hands of binge drinking/drugging undergrads that are on their own for the first time in their lives.

I donít necessarily disagree, and Iím not exactly advocating arming all students either.
Iím taking pot shots at the idea that guns cause crime. Because they donít, theyíre merely a tool:

It is the hard heart that kills.

Sure-Oz
03-11-2008, 08:57 AM
I say give them all tazers

Radar Chief
03-11-2008, 09:03 AM
So, Iím left wondering: are we hearing more about violence on campusí because sensationalism sells news or because criminals have found a soft target where they know no one is armed?

HonestChieffan
03-11-2008, 09:05 AM
http://concealedcampus.org/

This group is growing rapidly

DaKCMan AP
03-11-2008, 09:13 AM
What if everyone else was armed also? Would they have gotten away with killing nearly as many as they did?

How many more might have been injured or killed if a bunch of guns started going off? It works both ways.

Radar Chief
03-11-2008, 09:25 AM
How many more might have been injured or killed if a bunch of guns started going off? It works both ways.

How exactly do ďguns start going offĒ on their own?

DaKCMan AP
03-11-2008, 09:28 AM
How exactly do ďguns start going offĒ on their own?

Who stated that they're going off on their own?

If a bunch of armed people under attack start pulling out guns and firing in a panicked situation I'm not confident everyone is going to have great aim and/or control.

Otter
03-11-2008, 09:30 AM
A chicken in every pot and a cap for every ass!!!

Cochise
03-11-2008, 09:30 AM
I've been considering this too. It's not just colleges, it's workplaces too where it happens. In a way I feel like if you're a responsible member of society, maybe it's almost your duty to prepare yourself and help protect others?

I'm worried about the political situation this fall and beyond, too... It could become a 'get them while you can' situation.

Jilly
03-11-2008, 09:32 AM
So, Iím left wondering: are we hearing more about violence on campusí because sensationalism sells news or because criminals have found a soft target where they know no one is armed?

good question....

HonestChieffan
03-11-2008, 09:32 AM
If we are not careful we will have an all out assault on our Constitutional rights to have fireams over the next 4 years. Campus rules or not, the threat to all of us is very real.

Radar Chief
03-11-2008, 09:32 AM
Who stated that they're going off on their own?

You did. You didnít mention a word about the people pulling the trigger, just that guns would start going off.

If a bunch of armed people under attack start pulling out guns and firing in a panicked situation I'm not confident everyone is going to have great aim and/or control.

Why do you automatically assume everyone will pull their gat and start hosing down everything in front of them?

Cochise
03-11-2008, 09:32 AM
I'm reminded of the VT shootings... that nutjob kid chained all the doors shut and just walked around the building emptying like 20 magazines.... he shot, what 50 people, for want of one other person there who could stop him.

Hell someone engaging him would have at least given others time to escape.

Frazod
03-11-2008, 09:40 AM
I could be wrong but my natural reaction to almost all gun crimes and especially ones like V-tech is that there should be tighter gun control not people getting more guns. Arming more people won't lead to less gun crimes. But will lead to more gun injury/deaths.

Why don't these nutjobs shoot up police stations? Because they know everybody in the police station will be ARMED.

If a nutjob wants to shoot up a building, and Building A has an armed guard in front, and Building B doesn't, the nutjob will shoot up Building B. Sucks if you're in Building B. But the nutjob went where the obvious armed resistance wasn't.

However, if conceal/carry laws are in effect, the nutjob won't know who is/isn't armed. Instead of a building full of easy targets, the nutjob won't know who'll cower in fear and who'll pull out a .357 and put a couple of rounds through his f#cking head.

History has shown these people to be complete cowards. Take away the easy kill and you will go a long way towards eleviating the problem.

DaKCMan AP
03-11-2008, 09:41 AM
You did. You didnít mention a word about the people pulling the trigger, just that guns would start going off.

Don't be an ass about semantics.

Why do you automatically assume everyone will pull their gat and start hosing down everything in front of them?

Why do you automatically assume that people, if armed, wont pull out their weapons and start firing?

DaKCMan AP
03-11-2008, 09:42 AM
Why don't these nutjobs shoot up police stations? Because they know everybody in the police station will be ARMED.

If a nutjob wants to shoot up a building, and Building A has an armed guard in front, and Building B doesn't, the nutjob will shoot up Building B. Sucks if you're in Building B. But the nutjob went where the obvious armed resistance wasn't.

However, if conceal/carry laws are in effect, the nutjob won't know who is/isn't armed. Instead of a building full of easy targets, the nutjob won't know who'll cower in fear and who'll pull out a .357 and put a couple of rounds through his f#cking head.

History has shown these people to be complete cowards. Take away the easy kill and you will go a long way towards eleviating the problem.

I don't buy that argument. Most of these wackos ending offing themselves. Why would others having weapons deter or scare them if it's their intent to die anyway?

Reerun_KC
03-11-2008, 09:43 AM
That's just what I need.

I fail a student for writing a poor paper and she busts a cap in my ass.

F*cking awesome :banghead:
I am sure she could think of other reasons to bust a cap on yo ass....

Radar Chief
03-11-2008, 09:48 AM
I'm reminded of the VT shootings... that nutjob kid chained all the doors shut and just walked around the building emptying like 20 magazines.... he shot, what 50 people, for want of one other person there who could stop him.

Hell someone engaging him would have at least given others time to escape.

My thoughts also. But DaKCmanAP brings up a good point, even if I think heís going about it wrong.
Lets say youíre on campus at VT the day the shootings took place. You whip out your CC weapon and blast a cap in psychoís dome before he has the chance to stroll around campus killing at his leisure. I come around the corner just in time to see you drop psycho like yesterdays underwear and all I know is there is a crazed gunman roaming campus. In my mind, Iíve just identified you as the killer even though youíre the hero. I pull my gat and cap you. Someone else steps around the corner just in time to see me pull the trigger and, well it isnít hard to see how this could go down in a bad way.
Like I posted before, I donít necessarily think that arming all students is the right answer, if there is a right answer, but I certainly am not looking forward to sending my boy to a campus where he canít defend himself in the unlikely event he is caught in the middle of a VT type shooting.

Cochise
03-11-2008, 09:51 AM
Why don't these nutjobs shoot up police stations? Because they know everybody in the police station will be ARMED.

If a nutjob wants to shoot up a building, and Building A has an armed guard in front, and Building B doesn't, the nutjob will shoot up Building B. Sucks if you're in Building B. But the nutjob went where the obvious armed resistance wasn't.

However, if conceal/carry laws are in effect, the nutjob won't know who is/isn't armed. Instead of a building full of easy targets, the nutjob won't know who'll cower in fear and who'll pull out a .357 and put a couple of rounds through his f#cking head.

History has shown these people to be complete cowards. Take away the easy kill and you will go a long way towards eleviating the problem.

QFT

Frazod
03-11-2008, 09:51 AM
I don't buy that argument. Most of these wackos ending offing themselves. Why would others having weapons deter or scare them if it's their intent to die anyway?

What part of COWARD don't you understand? They don't go places where they know people will fight back. That's been shown over and over. They shoot up schools and office buildings.

If the psycho just offs himself because he can't find an appropriate sheep zone to shoot up first, well, that's good news for the rest of us.

It amazes me how people don't get this. It really is a simple concept to understand.

Cochise
03-11-2008, 09:53 AM
I don't buy that argument. Most of these wackos ending offing themselves. Why would others having weapons deter or scare them if it's their intent to die anyway?

Because they want to take a ton of people with them. They want to roam around like they are god or an action movie star, condemning people to death, and ending it on their terms. They don't want someone to put a stop to them as soon as they start firing. they want the media to focus on them and be famous. They can't cause a catastrophe if they draw in a police station and get whacked in 2 seconds

I think most of them feel their life is out of control and this is their ultimate attempt to exercise control over the world, for as long as it lasts.

Radar Chief
03-11-2008, 09:54 AM
Don't be an ass about semantics.

:shrug: Donít be an ass with your over-generalizations.


Why do you automatically assume that people, if armed, wont pull out their weapons and start firing?

Because Iíve grown up around guns. Most of my friends, family, have also but oddly none of us have ever pulled one of our guns and just indiscriminately shot at people.
What experience do you have with guns? Maybe thatís where the problem is.

Chiefnj2
03-11-2008, 09:56 AM
History has shown these people to be complete cowards. Take away the easy kill and you will go a long way towards eleviating the problem.

...and you create a secondary problem of having single shootings at a greater frequency.

Radar Chief
03-11-2008, 09:57 AM
Because they want to take a ton of people with them. They want to roam around like they are god or an action movie star, condemning people to death, and ending it on their terms. They don't want someone to put a stop to them as soon as they start firing. they want the media to focus on them and be famous. They can't cause a catastrophe if they draw in a police station and get whacked in 2 seconds

I think most of them feel their life is out of control and this is their ultimate attempt to exercise control over the world, for as long as it lasts.

Good way of putting it.

Radar Chief
03-11-2008, 09:58 AM
...and you create a secondary problem of having single shootings at a greater frequency.

Maybe, got any statistical data to back that up?

DaKCMan AP
03-11-2008, 09:59 AM
What part of COWARD don't you understand? They don't go places where they know people will fight back. That's been shown over and over. They shoot up schools and office buildings.

If the psycho just offs himself because he can't find an appropriate sheep zone to shoot up first, well, that's good news for the rest of us.

It amazes me how people don't get this. It really is a simple concept to understand.

Maybe because these people aren't cops? Most of the school shootings are -- gasp -- done by students. Some people shoot up their office. It's generally, not always, the places that the person is familiar with or has the problem that they go to.

DaKCMan AP
03-11-2008, 10:01 AM
Because Iíve grown up around guns. Most of my friends, family, have also but oddly none of us have ever pulled one of our guns and just indiscriminately shot at people.
What experience do you have with guns? Maybe thatís where the problem is.

So if you were in a situation in which you had your gun and someone came in and opened fire you would sit tight without responding?

My experience with guns is that I was walking to class one day on a CC campus 4-5 years ago when about 30-40 feet in front of me a guy comes up and shoots his ex girlfriend in the head and then kills himself. I don't need or want any further experiences with guns.

Frazod
03-11-2008, 10:07 AM
Maybe because these people aren't cops? Most of the school shootings are -- gasp -- done by students. Some people shoot up their office. It's generally, not always, the places that the person is familiar with or has the problem that they go to.

Boy, you've been fully indoctrinated, haven't you? So nobody can effectively wield a firearm unless they're a cop, right?

Oh wait, criminals can.

And so can psycho killers.

But not everyday law abiding citizens.

Right?

:stupid:

Radar Chief
03-11-2008, 10:08 AM
So if you were in a situation in which you had your gun and someone came in and opened fire you would sit tight without responding?

So, the only way to intelligently defend yourself, others around you, is to pull your gat and empty your magazine at whatever’s in front of you?

My experience with guns is that I was walking to class one day on a CC campus 4-5 years ago when about 30-40 feet in front of me a guy comes up and shoots his ex girlfriend in the head and then kills himself. I don't need or want any further experiences with guns.

I’m sorry for your bad experience. It’s a hard thing to watch someone die, there is nothing glamorous or noble about it. It’s just dead.
Though, several times more people die due to automotive related incidents than die from gun related ones, but I assume you’re still driving.

Cochise
03-11-2008, 10:13 AM
So if you were in a situation in which you had your gun and someone came in and opened fire you would sit tight without responding?

My experience with guns is that I was walking to class one day on a CC campus 4-5 years ago when about 30-40 feet in front of me a guy comes up and shoots his ex girlfriend in the head and then kills himself. I don't need or want any further experiences with guns.

I'm sorry you had to witness that, but it doesn't sound like the law entered into the equation at all for this guy. You could make a million laws against what he did and he still would have done it.

HonestChieffan
03-11-2008, 10:13 AM
Never met an anti gunner who can be rational and discuss without becoming hysterical and blaming all the evils on the gun.

DaKCMan AP
03-11-2008, 10:14 AM
So nobody can effectively wield a firearm unless they're a cop, right?


Your words, not mine.

DaKCMan AP
03-11-2008, 10:15 AM
I'm sorry you had to witness that, but it doesn't sound like the law entered into the equation at all for this guy. You could make a million laws against what he did and he still would have done it.

You're absolutely right, but I don't see how having an armed campus would have prevented it either.

DaKCMan AP
03-11-2008, 10:17 AM
So, the only way to intelligently defend yourself, others around you, is to pull your gat and empty your magazine at whateverís in front of you?

Would you or wouldn't you? If you were at VT or NIU, you were armed, and someone entered your classroom and started shooting would you fire back or not?

blueballs
03-11-2008, 10:18 AM
someone will shoot her cans

Chiefnj2
03-11-2008, 10:19 AM
Maybe, got any statistical data to back that up?

Do guns and alcohol mix?

Frazod
03-11-2008, 10:20 AM
Your words, not mine.

You're a complete moron.

I'm sorry you got all traumatized by witnessing a crime an obvious crime of passion. If the guy had slit her throat with a steak knife and then thrown himself in front of a train, would you want steak knives and trains made illegal?

:shake:

Radar Chief
03-11-2008, 10:20 AM
Would you or wouldn't you? If you were at VT or NIU, you were armed, and someone entered your classroom and started shooting would you fire back or not?

Far to situation dependent to give a conclusive yes or no.
If the situation presented itself so that I could blow psycho away without injuring someone else, yes. But a lot more goes into pulling a trigger than just the mechanical response of your index finger twitching and if you have no experience or training with firearms, I wouldnít expect you to know that.

InChiefsHell
03-11-2008, 10:20 AM
So if you were in a situation in which you had your gun and someone came in and opened fire you would sit tight without responding?

My experience with guns is that I was walking to class one day on a CC campus 4-5 years ago when about 30-40 feet in front of me a guy comes up and shoots his ex girlfriend in the head and then kills himself. I don't need or want any further experiences with guns.

Fair enough, don't carry one.

I understand what you are saying about the idea that people could mis-fire and more chaos might reign, but dang dude...you are advocating people just being sheep and having no means of protection. Pretty hard to take out a shooter with a can of mace...

When my daughter goes to college some day, I will definitely get her the pepper spray etc, and if she felt comfortable, I'd suggest a firearm. I don't believe in being a lemming and I sure as hell don't want my daughter to be one. My son too, for that matter.

Where did the guy from VT get his guns anyway?

Cochise
03-11-2008, 10:21 AM
You're absolutely right, but I don't see how having an armed campus would have prevented it either.

I don't think anything could prevent something like that. I don't think that is applicable here.

DaKCMan AP
03-11-2008, 10:21 AM
You're a complete moron.

I'm sorry you got all traumatized by witnessing a crime an obvious crime of passion. If the guy had slit her throat with a steak knife and then thrown himself in front of a train, would you want steak knives and trains made illegal?

:shake:

It was horrific, but I'm not traumatized by it. We can disagree, but I'm not a proponent of allowing guns in schools and on campus.

Radar Chief
03-11-2008, 10:23 AM
Do guns and alcohol mix?

Same question in response.

Maybe, got any statistical data to back that up?

Iím willing to read anything you come up with, Iím just asking how you come by that opinion as I hadnít heard it before.

DaKCMan AP
03-11-2008, 10:25 AM
When my daughter goes to college some day, I will definitely get her the pepper spray etc, and if she felt comfortable, I'd suggest a firearm.

Good luck, but the majority of college campuses restrict the presence of any firearms, whether you have a permit or not.

HonestChieffan
03-11-2008, 10:32 AM
So, they also require you to be 21 to drink but that has not been a great success has it?

Sure-Oz
03-11-2008, 10:35 AM
tazer is where its at shock the shit out of em and then kick them in the nuts

Frazod
03-11-2008, 10:36 AM
Good luck, but the majority of college campuses restrict the presence of any firearms, whether you have a permit or not.

Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

CosmicPal
03-11-2008, 10:37 AM
I'm sorry you got all traumatized by witnessing a crime an obvious crime of passion. If the guy had slit her throat with a steak knife and then thrown himself in front of a train, would you want steak knives and trains made illegal?

:shake:

Don't take this the wrong way Frazod, 'cause I admire you, but that is the same tired and lame argument everyone in the NRA likes to toss around as dribble.

There's a huge difference between a gun and a steak knife. Here's an example: The bf is sitting next to the gf in the classroom. He pulls out the gun, points it at her head and shoots. He then pulls it on himself. Two people dead before anyone can react appropriately or even know just what the hell had just happened.

Same situation, only the weapon of choice is a steak knife. Bf now has to get out of the chair to approach her with the steak knife and then begins stabbing her. It would take a great many stab wounds to kill her, but more importantly, because he is not able to finish her off immediately, other students in the room can easily pull him off of her, thus saving her life.

That is what gun haters use to defend no guns in our nation: the fact that they are so lethal and can be as easily obtained as a steak knife is.

Radar Chief
03-11-2008, 10:44 AM
Don't take this the wrong way Frazod, 'cause I admire you, but that is the same tired and lame argument everyone in the NRA likes to toss around as dribble.

There's a huge difference between a gun and a steak knife. Here's an example: The bf is sitting next to the gf in the classroom. He pulls out the gun, points it at her head and shoots. He then pulls it on himself. Two people dead before anyone can react appropriately or even know just what the hell had just happened.

Same situation, only the weapon of choice is a steak knife. Bf now has to get out of the chair to approach her with the steak knife and then begins stabbing her. It would take a great many stab wounds to kill her, but more importantly, because he is not able to finish her off immediately, other students in the room can easily pull him off of her, thus saving her life.

That is what gun haters use to defend no guns in our nation: the fact that they are so lethal and can be as easily obtained as a steak knife is.

Wow, youíre buying some damn expensive steak knives with a background check and waiting period.

Frazod
03-11-2008, 10:45 AM
Don't take this the wrong way Frazod, 'cause I admire you, but that is the same tired and lame argument everyone in the NRA likes to toss around as dribble.

There's a huge difference between a gun and a steak knife. Here's an example: The bf is sitting next to the gf in the classroom. He pulls out the gun, points it at her head and shoots. He then pulls it on himself. Two people dead before anyone can react appropriately or even know just what the hell had just happened.

Same situation, only the weapon of choice is a steak knife. Bf now has to get out of the chair to approach her with the steak knife and then begins stabbing her. It would take a great many stab wounds to kill her, but more importantly, because he is not able to finish her off immediately, other students in the room can easily pull him off of her, thus saving her life.

That is what gun haters use to defend no guns in our nation: the fact that they are so lethal and can be as easily obtained as a steak knife is.

I don't really see your point. A single stab wound can kill. OTOH, multiple gunshot wounds may only wound, not kill. It all depends on the nature of the wound, the person inflicting the wound, and the victim.

CosmicPal
03-11-2008, 10:52 AM
Wow, youíre buying some damn expensive steak knives with a background check and waiting period.

Who's saying anything about background checks for steak knives? I am merely conveying the argument that anti-gun enthusiasts like to use, and that is that guns are lethal and as easy to obtain as a fuggen steak knife.

Brock
03-11-2008, 10:55 AM
the fact that they are so lethal and can be as easily obtained as a steak knife is.

That's not correct in most places around the country.

Radar Chief
03-11-2008, 10:56 AM
Who's saying anything about background checks for steak knives? I am merely conveying the argument that anti-gun enthusiasts like to use, and that is that guns are lethal and as easy to obtain as a fuggen steak knife.

Sorry, I thought what I posted was pretty self evident, that guns are a lot more expensive and harder to buy than a "fuggen steak knife".

Iowanian
03-11-2008, 11:02 AM
The only people who give a damn about laws and regulations, are people who already follow them. Criminals are already armed.

A couple of honest people with concealed weapons could have saved a lot of lives over the years, in Luby's restaraunts and any other number of shooting locations.

At least a few of "the good guys" should be armed if they choose, IMO....but I don't know that the average student is ready for the responsibility.

InChiefsHell
03-11-2008, 11:12 AM
Good luck, but the majority of college campuses restrict the presence of any firearms, whether you have a permit or not.

True, but she won't always be on campus...and she might not live on campus. But I do think it's crap that a competent, law abiding citizen is not afforded the right to protect themselves from the law breaking psychos who might want them dead...for whatever reason. I don't care where it is, campus or workplace...

LocoChiefsFan
03-11-2008, 11:33 AM
I could be wrong but my natural reaction to almost all gun crimes and especially ones like V-tech is that there should be tighter gun control not people getting more guns. Arming more people won't lead to less gun crimes. But will lead to more gun injury/deaths.http://p1.forumforfree.com/images/smiles/009.gif http://www.theforumsite.com/images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif

Zeke Ziggle
03-11-2008, 01:10 PM
http://p1.forumforfree.com/images/smiles/009.gif http://www.theforumsite.com/images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif

Hey just trying to make a point. Here in Australia we had fairly leinet gun control. That was until a massacre is Tasmania when a guy came in and killed 35 people in a restaurant. After this the Australian government introduced a gun buy back scheme forcing people to hand in all sorts of guns including assault rifles and semi automatics. since that time gun violence in Australia has been steadily declining. Japan is another country which has very strict gun control coupled with low gun crime rates.

I understand that neither of these country are accurate views compared to your situation because neither country has a constitutional right to own guns. And I completely understand that only lawful citizens would stick to the law, however it seems from my point of view that restricting weapon does not increase weapon death but lowers it.

Chiefmanwillcatch
03-11-2008, 01:27 PM
Balance is the KEY.

Shooters want to take out as many people as they can. They have the advantage.

ARM 'responsible' individuals.

Iowanian
03-11-2008, 01:31 PM
Is cmwgy added to gunthergonfreakshowlizerfan?

Chiefnj2
03-11-2008, 01:35 PM
Hey just trying to make a point. Here in Australia we had fairly leinet gun control. That was until a massacre is Tasmania when a guy came in and killed 35 people in a restaurant. After this the Australian government introduced a gun buy back scheme forcing people to hand in all sorts of guns including assault rifles and semi automatics. since that time gun violence in Australia has been steadily declining. Japan is another country which has very strict gun control coupled with low gun crime rates.

I understand that neither of these country are accurate views compared to your situation because neither country has a constitutional right to own guns. And I completely understand that only lawful citizens would stick to the law, however it seems from my point of view that restricting weapon does not increase weapon death but lowers it.

Yeah but you guys have those crazy ass kids that dress in fur and throw boomerangs at people's heads. I've seen the Road Warrior movies. Australia is so not safe.

Cochise
03-11-2008, 02:09 PM
Hey just trying to make a point. Here in Australia we had fairly leinet gun control. That was until a massacre is Tasmania when a guy came in and killed 35 people in a restaurant. After this the Australian government introduced a gun buy back scheme forcing people to hand in all sorts of guns including assault rifles and semi automatics. since that time gun violence in Australia has been steadily declining. Japan is another country which has very strict gun control coupled with low gun crime rates.

I understand that neither of these country are accurate views compared to your situation because neither country has a constitutional right to own guns. And I completely understand that only lawful citizens would stick to the law, however it seems from my point of view that restricting weapon does not increase weapon death but lowers it.

Sure, if you're willing to force everyone to give up a freedom, I'm sure you can increase general security a little bit.

DenverChief
03-11-2008, 04:10 PM
Why do you automatically assume that people, if armed, wont pull out their weapons and start firing?

why do you assume that everyone who could legally carry a firearm concealed on a college campus instantly becomes a retard in a stressful situation?

DenverChief
03-11-2008, 04:13 PM
Like I posted before, I donít necessarily think that arming all students is the right answer

absolutley not....but those that are qualified should be allowed to ...1 in 50 would have been suitable at Va tech no?

Bowser
03-11-2008, 04:16 PM
Murders would increase a hundredfold every fourth week.

DenverChief
03-11-2008, 04:41 PM
Murders would increase a hundredfold every fourth week.

:spock:

KCHawg
03-11-2008, 04:43 PM
Hey just trying to make a point. Here in Australia we had fairly leinet gun control. That was until a massacre is Tasmania when a guy came in and killed 35 people in a restaurant. After this the Australian government introduced a gun buy back scheme forcing people to hand in all sorts of guns including assault rifles and semi automatics. since that time gun violence in Australia has been steadily declining. Japan is another country which has very strict gun control coupled with low gun crime rates.

I understand that neither of these country are accurate views compared to your situation because neither country has a constitutional right to own guns. And I completely understand that only lawful citizens would stick to the law, however it seems from my point of view that restricting weapon does not increase weapon death but lowers it.

In Switzerland there are automatic weapons in the hands of all able bodied males, (the Swiss self defense force which includes , I believe all males 18-65) where is all of the gun violence there?

Chiefmanwillcatch
03-11-2008, 04:52 PM
Another idea is to do more profiling which pisses black people off.

But it should be targetted to all hood gangster looking persons.

Maybe ID cards around college campuses.

Iowanian
03-11-2008, 05:02 PM
...and we're off!

Jenson71
03-11-2008, 05:20 PM
My university has implemented an alert system. The system calls your home and texts you a message (if you have a cellphone) that gives out dangers. We just got one actually. There's a possible dangerous weapon in a residence hall on campus.

It's sad that we have to spend our resources on this kind of stuff. Very very sad.

DenverChief
03-11-2008, 05:42 PM
.

Jenson71
03-11-2008, 05:47 PM
Go to www.uni.edu to see the Alert System in action.

Demonpenz
03-11-2008, 05:49 PM
college students can barely afford ramen

Chief Roundup
03-11-2008, 06:32 PM
This is one of the worst statements I have read on the planet.
Arming women the most emotionally out of control being on this planet is STUPID.

Just screen all people that are on premises of colleges. The screening should include psychological evaluations.

alanm
03-11-2008, 06:39 PM
Just my 2 cents but I'm for open carry with a permit. When a criminal sees you carrying a holstered weapon it's even more of a deterrent.
I see ranchers out here in Western Nebraska packing heat all the time. And not many people give it a second notice.

Jenson71
03-11-2008, 06:52 PM
My university has implemented an alert system. The system calls your home and texts you a message (if you have a cellphone) that gives out dangers. We just got one actually. There's a possible dangerous weapon in a residence hall on campus.

It's sad that we have to spend our resources on this kind of stuff. Very very sad.

UPDATE:

Looks like everything is okay. We can resume with our normal activities. They have someone in custody in Des Moines.

Good system.

DaKCMan AP
03-11-2008, 07:21 PM
UPDATE:

Looks like everything is okay. We can resume with our normal activities. They have someone in custody in Des Moines.

Good system.

It can be good to alert others not immediately in the presence of a situation. However, even then it has to be used. At UF they have a similar text-message, email based system and a few weeks ago they had a bomb threat at a building. They evacuated the building and searched it, etc. but for some reason did not use their alert system.

88TG88
03-11-2008, 07:27 PM
Another idea is to do more profiling which pisses black people off.

But it should be targetted to all hood gangster looking persons.

Maybe ID cards around college campuses.

Lets do it, whats the worse that could happen




:rolleyes:

Jenson71
03-11-2008, 07:39 PM
It can be good to alert others not immediately in the presence of a situation. However, even then it has to be used. At UF they have a similar text-message, email based system and a few weeks ago they had a bomb threat at a building. They evacuated the building and searched it, etc. but for some reason did not use their alert system.

This apparently stemmed from some text messages from a man to a female student. Said something about coming to campus with a weapon. The student called the police and the dorms were locked down for about two hours while police investigated.

I hope this isn't something that will be abused or taken to any extreme, but we're going to see some cautious campus administrators after the recent shootings.

:shake:

Buehler445
03-11-2008, 10:20 PM
This apparently stemmed from some text messages from a man to a female student. Said something about coming to campus with a weapon. The student called the police and the dorms were locked down for about two hours while police investigated.

I hope this isn't something that will be abused or taken to any extreme, but we're going to see some cautious campus administrators after the recent shootings.

:shake:

It will. Don't worry. Bitches at ESU used to pull the fire alarms all the time at 4:00 in the morning just to watch us run out. If they pursecute the bitches it may stop. But I see abuse.

I think it is a very good program, but just be weary of the bitches.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2008, 10:27 PM
Just my 2 cents but I'm for open carry with a permit. When a criminal sees you carrying a holstered weapon it's even more of a deterrent.
I see ranchers out here in Western Nebraska packing heat all the time. And not many people give it a second notice.

No offense but you live in a very sparsely populated place.

Could you imagine allowing concealed weapons on the campus of schools like UCLA, NYU, USC, or the University of Miami?

I think these murders are horrible and don't want to downplay the pain, anguish and suffering of the relatives.

But to suddenly allow over 20 million under-21 year-olds to carry weapons on a college campus is probably the dumbest idea EVER.

boogblaster
03-11-2008, 10:44 PM
My daughter carries pepper-spray and a knife ....

alanm
03-11-2008, 11:03 PM
No offense but you live in a very sparsely populated place.

Could you imagine allowing concealed weapons on the campus of schools like UCLA, NYU, USC, or the University of Miami?

I think these murders are horrible and don't want to downplay the pain, anguish and suffering of the relatives.

But to suddenly allow over 20 million under-21 year-olds to carry weapons on a college campus is probably the dumbest idea EVER.
Dane, I'm not talking about concealed weapons. I'm talking about open carry. As in wearing a weapon in a holster in plain sight. A holster around your waist or a shoulder holster. Like the old west as it were. And by no means am I in favor of arming 22 yr old and under kids on campus. Yeah.. that seems like a good idea, what could go wrong. :hmmm:
I'm just saying that open carry in general would deter more crime than concealed. JMO

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2008, 11:10 PM
Dane, I'm not talking about concealed weapons. I'm talking about open carry. As in wearing a weapon in a holster in plain sight. A holster around your waist or a shoulder holster. Like the old west as it were. And by no means am I in favor of arming 22 yr old and under kids on campus. Yeah.. that seems like a good idea, what could go wrong. :hmmm:
I'm just saying that open carry in general would deter more crime than concealed. JMO

I guess. I just think that in most urban areas, people just don't carry guns.

I live in a city that has 20 million people. I'm friends with more than 15 people in my small neighborhood and no one I know owns a gun. No one hunts. Nothing. As a matter of fact, no one that I've ever known (outside of a SWAT cop who's married to friend of my wife) owns a gun.

I know it's quite different in the midwest (having grown up and lived there until age 27) but in larger urban areas, hunting is not a past time. Therefore, few own guns.

Personally, I feel uncomfortable when I see people wearing guns (usually Brinks Truck drivers). I'd really feel uncomfortable if every time I went to the grocery store or to Baja Fresh or a bar, I saw someone with a piece strapped to their chest.

VERY uncomfortable.

Frazod
03-11-2008, 11:20 PM
No offense but you live in a very sparsely populated place.

Could you imagine allowing concealed weapons on the campus of schools like UCLA, NYU, USC, or the University of Miami?

I think these murders are horrible and don't want to downplay the pain, anguish and suffering of the relatives.

But to suddenly allow over 20 million under-21 year-olds to carry weapons on a college campus is probably the dumbest idea EVER.

First off, no one is suggesting passing complimentary guns out along with textbooks. Most people won't want to carry one (the liberal media has done a fine job indoctrinating most urbanites to hate and fear guns). Of the people who do, some won't pass the training course or meet the psychological requirements.

But even if only one person in 15 or 20 is carrying a concealed weapon, and the bad guys know this, it would give them pause before causing trouble.

Jenson71
03-11-2008, 11:25 PM
Dane, I'm not talking about concealed weapons. I'm talking about open carry. As in wearing a weapon in a holster in plain sight. A holster around your waist or a shoulder holster. Like the old west as it were. And by no means am I in favor of arming 22 yr old and under kids on campus. Yeah.. that seems like a good idea, what could go wrong. :hmmm:
I'm just saying that open carry in general would deter more crime than concealed. JMO

UNI and the other regent universities in Iowa voted this school year to arm campus police.

There were a few very vocal people against it, but overall, I'd say it was pretty split.

Personally, I don't mind cops having a gun at all. I'm also for cops having top-notch training in dealing with situations and violence prevention sort of things.

I knew they were going to have to be allowed, even though the teachers' committee was against it. No president would have said no to the guns and then wanted to have faced the heat if a tragedy did strike.

alanm
03-11-2008, 11:29 PM
I guess. I just think that in most urban areas, people just don't carry guns.

I live in a city that has 20 million people. I'm friends with more than 15 people in my small neighborhood and no one I know owns a gun. No one hunts. Nothing. As a matter of fact, no one that I've ever known (outside of a SWAT cop who's married to friend of my wife) owns a gun.

I know it's quite different in the midwest (having grown up and lived there until age 27) but in larger urban areas, hunting is not a past time. Therefore, few own guns.

Personally, I feel uncomfortable when I see people wearing guns (usually Brinks Truck drivers). I'd really feel uncomfortable if every time I went to the grocery store or to Baja Fresh or a bar, I saw someone with a piece strapped to their chest.

VERY uncomfortable.
Dane, It's been my personal experience that dealing with the male gender under the age of 30 on his turf in.. how shall I phrase this.. Not quite as refined neighborhoods, and stressing the hood part.. in various cities and towns in the midwest and southwest it's been my experience that upwards of 80 to 90% are carrying weapons.
Of course my job called for me to be armed as well. :)

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2008, 11:30 PM
First off, no one is suggesting passing complimentary guns out along with textbooks. Most people won't want to carry one (the liberal media has done a fine job indoctrinating most urbanites to hate and fear guns). Of the people who do, some won't pass the training course or meet the psychological requirements.

But even if only one person in 15 or 20 is carrying a concealed weapon, and the bad guys know this, it would give them pause before causing trouble.

I understand your point. But I don't think the answer to tragedies like VaTech, Columbine and the like is to allow a large majority of the supposed 80 million gun owners in the US to carry an unconcealed or concealed weapons. I believe that it's very possible that we would likely multiply the number of tragedies, tenfold.

Having said that, please don't misconstrue my post as being anti-gun or anti-gun law. There are obviously tens of millions of responsible gun owners throughout the US, 99.99999% of whom would never aim their gun at another human being.

But I do believe that if people were allowed to carry their guns anywhere in public and at any time, the risk of accident and tragedy would drastically increase.

alanm
03-11-2008, 11:38 PM
First off, no one is suggesting passing complimentary guns out along with textbooks. Most people won't want to carry one (the liberal media has done a fine job indoctrinating most urbanites to hate and fear guns). Of the people who do, some won't pass the training course or meet the psychological requirements.

But even if only one person in 15 or 20 is carrying a concealed weapon, and the bad guys know this, it would give them pause before causing trouble.
Breaking it down further like you did seems logical. There would be very few licensed to carry on campus. Probably have buildings where you weren't allowed to carry in a weapon any way. Which would of course spread across campus resulting in carrying a weapon moot anyway.

Frazod
03-11-2008, 11:40 PM
I understand your point. But I don't think the answer to tragedies like VaTech, Columbine and the like is to allow a large majority of the supposed 80 million gun owners in the US to carry an unconcealed or concealed weapons. I believe that it's very possible that we would likely multiply the number of tragedies, tenfold.

Having said that, please don't misconstrue my post as being anti-gun or anti-gun law. There are obviously tens of millions of responsible gun owners throughout the US, 99.99999% of whom would never aim their gun at another human being.

But I do believe that if people were allowed to carry their guns anywhere in public and at any time, the risk of accident and tragedy would drastically increase.

A responsible person with a gun is keenly aware of the consequences of using it. Just because a gun owner gets pissed off doesn't mean he's going to riddle his/her antagonist with bullets just because he/she can.

I've owned a gun of one sort or another all my life. I have a pretty bad temper and for about five years had a serious coke problem. Despite this, during the course of my entire life, I've had occasion to point a gun at another human being twice; both times in self defense. In both cases, the offenders went away rather than get shot (which is the general idea). I've never had to pull the trigger and have never killed anyone. And while there have been occasions where I really, really wanted to turn some asshole into a bullet-riddled corpse, that whole getting thrown in a pound-me-in-the-ass prison for decades thing has always been a strong enough deterrent to convince me not to do it.

alanm
03-11-2008, 11:40 PM
UNI and the other regent universities in Iowa voted this school year to arm campus police.

There were a few very vocal people against it, but overall, I'd say it was pretty split.

Personally, I don't mind cops having a gun at all. I'm also for cops having top-notch training in dealing with situations and violence prevention sort of things.

I knew they were going to have to be allowed, even though the teachers' committee was against it. No president would have said no to the guns and then wanted to have faced the heat if a tragedy did strike.
Don't know about Northern Iowa but most campus police I know of are armed. Northern Iowa must be a bastion of liberalism.

Jenson71
03-11-2008, 11:43 PM
Don't know about Northern Iowa but most campus police I know of are armed. Northern Iowa must be a bastion of liberalism.

Arming campus police is kind of a recent development - and not just in Iowa. Like I said, it was all the regent universities that just decided this - University of Iowa, Iowa State, and UNI.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2008, 11:47 PM
A responsible person with a gun is keenly aware of the consequences of using it. Just because a gun owner gets pissed off doesn't mean he's going to riddle his/her antagonist with bullets just because he/she can.

I've owned a gun of one sort or another all my life. I have a pretty bad temper and for about five years had a serious coke problem. Despite this, during the course of my entire life, I've had occasion to point a gun at another human being twice; both times in self defense. In both cases, the offenders went away rather than get shot (which is the general idea). I've never had to pull the trigger and have never killed anyone. And while there have been occasions where I really, really wanted to turn some asshole into a bullet-riddled corpse, that whole getting thrown in a pound-me-in-the-ass prison for decades thing has always been a strong deterrent to convince me not to do it.

Again, I'm with you. I just find it hard to believe that everyone will have that same self-control if they were allowed to carry 24-7.

The bottom line is that I don't trust people.

Without getting on a tangent, people can't be trusted to pick up dog poop where dogs aren't allowed, people can't be trusted not to smoke in fire zones (and I live in one and see people smoking all the time. At the lookout point in my avatar, there's a huge no smoking sign though when I walked over there on Friday, people were smoking).

If everyone where as responsible as you and Alan (or even my dad, a 30 year gun owner) I'd have no problem. But the reality is that even if an extremely small percentage of people aren't, we could see hundreds of deaths a year, far more than the tragedies of VaTech and the like.

Frazod
03-11-2008, 11:49 PM
Breaking it down further like you did seems logical. There would be very few licensed to carry on campus. Probably have buildings where you weren't allowed to carry in a weapon any way. Which would of course spread across campus resulting in carrying a weapon moot anyway.

That's why there shouldn't be any restrictions. Gun free zones are nothing more than sheep pens.

Frazod
03-11-2008, 11:54 PM
Again, I'm with you. I just find it hard to believe that everyone will have that same self-control if they were allowed to carry 24-7.

The bottom line is that I don't trust people.

Without getting on a tangent, people can't be trusted to pick up dog poop where dogs aren't allowed, people can't be trusted not to smoke in fire zones (and I live in one and see people smoking all the time. At the lookout point in my avatar, there's a huge no smoking sign though when I walked over there on Friday, people were smoking).

If everyone where as responsible as you and Alan (or even my dad, a 30 year gun owner) I'd have no problem. But the reality is that even if an extremely small percentage of people aren't, we could see hundreds of deaths a year, far more than the tragedies of VaTech and the like.

If you don't trust people, that's all the more reason to carry your own gun. I certainly don't trust people. At all. And all I trust the cops to do is zip up my bodybag after somebody has killed me because I wasn't armed and able to (at least attempt to) defend myself at the moment of truth, because I was obeying some bullshit local law that flies in the face of my Constitutional rights. As we already know, the killer won't strike if the cop is there at the time. So if that happens, the cop might find my killer, but it won't make me any less dead. Justice is for survivors and the government; the victim gets dick. And it's just another day at the office to the cop, since he has no personal stake or interest in my life or whether I continue to live it. To me, my personal safety should be my responsibility. And I resent the fact that I can't legally take steps to defend myself by carrying a gun.

DaneMcCloud
03-11-2008, 11:59 PM
If you don't trust people, that's all the more reason to carry your own gun. I certainly don't trust people. At all. And all I trust the cops to do is zip up my bodybag after somebody has killed me because I wasn't armed and able to (at least attempt to) defend myself at the moment of truth, because I was obeying some bullshit local law that flies in the face of my Constitutional rights. As we already know, the killer won't strike if the cop is there at the time. So if that happens, the cop might find my killer, but it won't make me any less dead. Justice is for survivors and the government; the victim gets dick. And it's just another day at the office to the cop, since he has no personal stake or interest in my life or whether I continue to live it. To me, my personal safety should be my responsibility. And I resent the fact that I can't legally take steps to defend myself by carrying a gun.

My friend who I've mentioned earlier (he's the LA SWAT head of counter-terrorism) has tried to get me to the SWAT shooting range to teach me how to shoot a gun. While I think it would be good in case of self-defense, the idea of shooting or owning a gun doesn't appeal to me at all (it actually kind of scares me).

Do you suggest that I should take him up on it?

Frazod
03-12-2008, 12:07 AM
My friend who I've mentioned earlier (he's the LA SWAT head of counter-terrorism) has tried to get me to the SWAT shooting range to teach me how to shoot a gun. While I think it would be good in case of self-defense, the idea of shooting or owning a gun doesn't appeal to me at all (it actually kind of scares me).

Do you suggest that I should take him up on it?

Gun ownership isn't for everybody. But if you're a level-headed man, especially with a family to protect, it is something you should think about. Just consider what would happen to your area if a really major quake hit - there wouldn't be any cops around to protect you, and you damn sure won't scare off looters with harsh language.

It wouldn't hurt to at least try it. Any you're certainly not going to get any better instruction than from a SWAT cop - seriously, that sounds like a golden opportunity to learn from the best. I would take advantage of that.

DaneMcCloud
03-12-2008, 12:14 AM
Gun ownership isn't for everybody. But if you're a level-headed man, especially with a family to protect, it is something you should think about. Just consider what would happen to your area if a really major quake hit - there wouldn't be any cops around to protect you, and you damn sure won't scare off looters with harsh language.

It wouldn't hurt to at least try it. Any you're certainly not going to get any better instruction than from a SWAT cop - seriously, that sounds like a golden opportunity to learn from the best. I would take advantage of that.

Thanks for the advice. I'll seriously consider it.

Frazod
03-12-2008, 12:23 AM
Thanks for the advice. I'll seriously consider it.

Remember, when you cut through all the crap, a gun is just a tool. It serves a specific purpose, does a specific thing, and like anything else, it can be used for good or evil. It should be respected, but not feared.

Good luck.

Jenson71
03-12-2008, 12:35 AM
Do we really want Dane out there with a gun in his Gucci men's "handbag"? What if he overhears someone bad mouthing Britney and wipes out a block of shoppers on Melrose Ave?

InChiefsHell
03-12-2008, 04:52 AM
Do we really want Dane out there with a gun in his Gucci men's "handbag"? What if he overhears someone bad mouthing Britney and wipes out a block of shoppers on Melrose Ave?

Um...the world would be a better place?

DaKCMan AP
03-12-2008, 05:53 AM
UNI and the other regent universities in Iowa voted this school year to arm campus police.

There were a few very vocal people against it, but overall, I'd say it was pretty split.

Personally, I don't mind cops having a gun at all. I'm also for cops having top-notch training in dealing with situations and violence prevention sort of things.

I knew they were going to have to be allowed, even though the teachers' committee was against it. No president would have said no to the guns and then wanted to have faced the heat if a tragedy did strike.

That's kind of surprising that arming campus POLICE is a recent development. UF has its own police department and for as long as I've known they've been armed.

DenverChief
03-12-2008, 06:04 AM
Arming campus police is kind of a recent development - and not just in Iowa. Like I said, it was all the regent universities that just decided this - University of Iowa, Iowa State, and UNI.

WTF?

I know that any university/college that has a "police" department have always been armed....however some colleges/universities (mostly the private sort that cannot by law have a police force) have public safety officers which is a nice term for unarmed security

Radar Chief
03-12-2008, 07:12 AM
If you don't trust people, that's all the more reason to carry your own gun. I certainly don't trust people. At all. And all I trust the cops to do is zip up my bodybag after somebody has killed me because I wasn't armed and able to (at least attempt to) defend myself at the moment of truth, because I was obeying some bullshit local law that flies in the face of my Constitutional rights. As we already know, the killer won't strike if the cop is there at the time. So if that happens, the cop might find my killer, but it won't make me any less dead. Justice is for survivors and the government; the victim gets dick. And it's just another day at the office to the cop, since he has no personal stake or interest in my life or whether I continue to live it. To me, my personal safety should be my responsibility. And I resent the fact that I can't legally take steps to defend myself by carrying a gun.


I carry a gun because I canít carry a cop. ;)

Remember, when you cut through all the crap, a gun is just a tool. It serves a specific purpose, does a specific thing, and like anything else, it can be used for good or evil. It should be respected, but not feared.

Good luck.

The deadliest weapon in the world is a marine and his rifle. It is your killer instinct which must be harnessed if you expect to survive in combat. Your rifle is only a tool. It is a hard heart that kills.

:thumb:

alanm
03-12-2008, 08:02 AM
Gun ownership isn't for everybody. But if you're a level-headed man, especially with a family to protect, it is something you should think about. Just consider what would happen to your area if a really major quake hit - there wouldn't be any cops around to protect you, and you damn sure won't scare off looters with harsh language.

It wouldn't hurt to at least try it. Any you're certainly not going to get any better instruction than from a SWAT cop - seriously, that sounds like a golden opportunity to learn from the best. I would take advantage of that.
Living in So Cal like Dane does that's probably the most likely situation one could envision happening.

alanm
03-12-2008, 08:09 AM
That's kind of surprising that arming campus POLICE is a recent development. UF has its own police department and for as long as I've known they've been armed.
I'm guessing that it is a recent development for Northern Iowa. When I went to school back in the late 70's at UNO (Nebraska-Omaha) the campus police weren't armed. But they mostly writ parking tickets and did building security at night. UNL had armed police at the time though. I suppose it has more to do with the size of the school.

CosmicPal
03-12-2008, 08:55 AM
For what it's worth, I found this link comparing international homicides:

The U.S. has a high gun murder rate, whereas a country like England with strict gun controls has almost no gun murders and a very low murder rate. Doesn't this show that gun control is effective in reducing murder rates? Not exactly. Prior to having any gun controls, England already had a homicide rate much lower than the United States. Japan is another country typically cited.

Gun control opponents can play similar games. The Swiss with 7 million people have hundreds of thousands of fully-automatic rifles in their homes (see GunCite's "Swiss Gun Laws") and the Israelis, until recently, have had easy access to guns (brief summary of Israeli firearms regulations here). Both countries have low homicide rates. Likewise this doesn't mean more guns less crime.

The U.S. has a higher non-gun murder rate than many European country's total murder rates. On the other hand, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Mexico have non-gun murder rates in excess of our total murder rate.

Source: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

DaKCMan AP
03-12-2008, 08:59 AM
I'm guessing that it is a recent development for Northern Iowa. When I went to school back in the late 70's at UNO (Nebraska-Omaha) the campus police weren't armed. But they mostly writ parking tickets and did building security at night. UNL had armed police at the time though. I suppose it has more to do with the size of the school.

Ah, see at UF they have parking enforcement people who write parking tickets. UPD (University Police Department) does nothing of the sort save for someone parking in a handicap spot, fire lane, etc.

Chiefmanwillcatch
03-12-2008, 10:24 AM
We have a lot of evil gang people in this country. Yeah, most of them are black and latins.

If we preempted and rounded them up then the civil rights bozos would start calling people nazis.

So we wait for them to carjack and kill us one by one.



For what it's worth, I found this link comparing international homicides:

The U.S. has a high gun murder rate, whereas a country like England with strict gun controls has almost no gun murders and a very low murder rate. Doesn't this show that gun control is effective in reducing murder rates? Not exactly. Prior to having any gun controls, England already had a homicide rate much lower than the United States. Japan is another country typically cited.

Gun control opponents can play similar games. The Swiss with 7 million people have hundreds of thousands of fully-automatic rifles in their homes (see GunCite's "Swiss Gun Laws") and the Israelis, until recently, have had easy access to guns (brief summary of Israeli firearms regulations here). Both countries have low homicide rates. Likewise this doesn't mean more guns less crime.

The U.S. has a higher non-gun murder rate than many European country's total murder rates. On the other hand, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Mexico have non-gun murder rates in excess of our total murder rate.

Source: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

DaneMcCloud
03-12-2008, 10:34 AM
We have a lot of evil gang people in this country. Yeah, most of them are black and latins.

If we preempted and rounded them up then the civil rights bozos would start calling people nazis.

So we wait for them to carjack and kill us one by one.

You are SO right, Dude.

We need to round up about 60 million people of color and dispose of them. That way, the White Man will rule once again! :eek:

JFC

Iowanian
03-12-2008, 10:37 AM
dumb enough to be gunthergonfrequilishow but now....this has to be marl-blow.

DaneMcCloud
03-12-2008, 10:57 AM
dumb enough to be gunthergonfrequilishow but now....this has to be marl-blow.

I've always thought it was that guy