What *empirical* evidence do you have that legal CCW weapons at colleges are harmful?

[friendly_iconoclast]

And, yes, in this instance I am looking for confirmable media accounts.


P.S.: I'm going to set the over/under on the first appearance of an account of illegal gun carriage/use passed

off as legal carriage/use at the twentieth post. The pearl claspers seem to be fond of faith-promoting rumor,

and I expect an account of a 'legal' gun owner (who actually wasn't) doing something stupid and/or criminal to

appear in short order. Let's see how long that takes, shall we?

[aquart]

1. Yes, all college students and teachers should be armed.

Glocks for everyone!

[Glassunion]

8. Why Glocks?

Why not Ruger or Colt?

[jpak]

11. "Rugger"?

:rofl:

[Glassunion]

14. Thank you spelling police.

[lawodevolution]

17. oooo, jpak just won the debate with his "rugger" comment.

oooooooo, yall should learn the art of playground debate also, it's effective.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

20. ...

[Atypical Liberal]

109. SNARF

love the yup image.

[Glassunion]

44. Actually I was just talking rugby... Were we talking about firearms?

My bad.

[jpak]

48. I won? I WON!!!11

Woo Hooo!!!!111

:bouce:

:rofl:

[rfranklin]

23. I own a Rugger SR9 myself...

but that's just my pet name for it. I actually do own a Ruger and I find that many gun advocates here are hyper-pedantic when it comes to gun terminology.

[SteveM]

160. That's what she said.

[friendly_iconoclast]

13. Glocks are scary undetectable weapons of mass destruction, dontcha know?

[cleanhippie]

58. Thats the dumbest idea ever.

But you know that.

[rocktivity]

2. Not empirical, I admit, but suppose these students had had guns

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fAqFAx_zzk

:rofl:
rocktivity

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. Just go dig up some news reports from Utah, Washington, Colorado...

...and other places where over 21 CCW holders can carry on campus, and post 'em here.

Don't forget to exclude the places like Virginia Tech, U. Alabama-Huntsville, etc. where it was illegal....

[spin]

156. Maybe that's why some who post here are so opposed to firearms ...

they watch far too many movies.

[SteveM]

161. oh. a movie. fiction.

[jpak]

3. What is an acceptable death toll for NRA insanity?

:shrug:

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. Alcohol and automobiles kill far more students that guns do. Ban them on campus

And limited bans of both are Constitutionally acceptable.

But deaths caused by those aren't as fatal as those caused by guns, amirite?

[DonP]

50. Based on the actual empirical evidence - zero is a good number for the NRA

So I guess the NRA's number is a zero death toll for licensed College on campus CCW. What's your number?

It doesn't appear that there is any empirical evidence, or maybe gun control people just don't understand what that word actually means.

They seem to be posting a lot about how they "feel" about the issue.

Now you can all go back to running around in circles shrieking about Open Carry again.

[Loki]

73. It's called collateral damage because their "right" to carry

trumps your right to live without fearing some idiot with 10 hour course for a concealed carry permit. Yeah, 10 hours in Texas makes you a "gun carrying expert". I personally like Chris Rock's gun philosophy......everybody can have as many guns as they want, but the bullet will cost you $5,000.00. Ask them this, if they shoot and kill the wrong person, can we call it murder? I'm sure you will enjoy their tap dance around that one. Ask the 71 year old woman who was recently "accidentally" shot by a person who was negligent with his weapon and it discharged a bullet hitting her in her hip. She still has the bullet in her abdomen but the prosecuting attorney declined to file charges. If you hit a person with your vehicle and you injure them, you can be charged with careless and reckless driving and endangerment, if that person dies, possibly vehicular homicide that could result in prison time, but for disabling this woman who has undergone four surgeries, you get nothing. Just another inconvenient fact, the person who stopped the Arizona shooter was an un-armed, injured woman.

[mediator]

80. 10 hours is about the same training given to most police officers.

When I went through the academy it was one 8 hour day...if I had not been a gun owner since age 8 I would have felt cheated. At the end of the day, most of those guys still couldn't hit a barn...from the inside.

[YllwFvr]

95. ours is closer to 80 hours

cant tell you for sure yet, havent gotten that far buts its several weeks long

[speltwon]

105. I went to two police academies back in the day

And it was 40hrs+ for each of them. Not sure what your generation is.

[friendly_iconoclast]

112. *None* of these happened on a college campus. Got anything else?

When you come up with an answer for the question asked, do post it, mmkay?

[friendly_iconoclast]

115. Oh, and you beat my over/under by 53 posts. n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

113. You can be sued for negligence.

It's called collateral damage because their "right" to carry trumps your right to live without fearing some idiot with 10 hour course for a concealed carry permit. Yeah, 10 hours in Texas makes you a "gun carrying expert".

The simple fact is that people with concealed carry permits are hardly ever involved in any crime, let alone firearm crime. The rate of revocation is less than 2%. The rate of convictions in Texas for the last decade for CCW permit holders has been about one-quarter of one percent.

You have virtually nothing to worry about with CCW permit holders.

I personally like Chris Rock's gun philosophy......everybody can have as many guns as they want, but the bullet will cost you $5,000.00.

Which, of course, is why I reload. I make bullets for about a dime each.


Ask them this, if they shoot and kill the wrong person, can we call it murder? I'm sure you will enjoy their tap dance around that one. Ask the 71 year old woman who was recently "accidentally" shot by a person who was negligent with his weapon and it discharged a bullet hitting her in her hip. She still has the bullet in her abdomen but the prosecuting attorney declined to file charges. If you hit a person with your vehicle and you injure them, you can be charged with careless and reckless driving and endangerment, if that person dies, possibly vehicular homicide that could result in prison time, but for disabling this woman who has undergone four surgeries, you get nothing. Just another inconvenient fact, the person who stopped the Arizona shooter was an un-armed, injured woman.

The fact is that CCW permit holders are less likely to cause collateral damage during a shooting than even police officers are.

But in any case, you can sue anyone for anything. Certainly you can sue for damages due to negligence. Whether the person who accidentally shot the 71-year-old woman was prosecuted for criminal charges is a totally separate issue from that woman suing the shooter for civil damaged due to negligence! The only inconvenient fact being ignored is that the shooting victim can easily sue for damages caused by the shooter's negligence, and probably stands a good chance at winning. In fact, she can probably retain an attorney with no out-of-pocket expense, paying a percentage on condition of winning. I would be surprised if this has not already happened.

Murder is pretty clearly defined in the various degrees. So is manslaughter and negligent homicide. I think the laws are sufficient at present to handle homicides, intentional or otherwise.

[spin]

157. Well at least you admit you are afraid of people with carry permits ...

Do you realize that your chances of being shot by someone with a concealed weapons permit in Florida is less than your chances of getting hit by lightning?

[SteveM]

162. So-o-o, what is the evidence that carrying on campus is dangerous? nt

[gejohnston]

165. My philosophy on everything

is that I try not to pontificate on things I know little or nothing about, and I don't pay much attention to those who do. That includes you and Chris Rock.

if they shoot and kill the wrong person, can we call it murder? I'm sure you will enjoy their tap dance around that one.

Cops do it more often than CCW, so ask them. Besides, that has been an anti talking point since Nixon.

Ask the 71 year old woman who was recently "accidentally" shot by a person who was negligent with his weapon and it discharged a bullet hitting her in her hip.

Was it accidental or negligent? Do you know the difference? How about this: When some gangster sprays bullets from a sub-machine gun (stolen from a LAPD armory) into the house of his competitor's house. One of the bullets hits his three year old sister, you get to tell the parents that you were the one that paid for the weapon and ammo because you are too lazy to grow your own pot.

Just another inconvenient fact, the person who stopped the Arizona shooter was an un-armed, injured woman.

So? Only after his gun jammed and already shooting a bunch of people. How do you know she or any of the others that tackled him were unarmed? If you are that close, they did what was easy.

[DWC]

143. Zero Honest People

anywhere.

Semper Fi,

[Tuesday Afternoon]

151. and yet you laughed at all those deaths of Johnny Rebs

and it was OK when Billy Yank open carried their guns..................

so, you would say that WAR makes a death toll acceptable, correct?

[WatsonT]

153. What's the acceptable death toll for any right?

If free speech in any incidence leads to death, is that acceptable or should we ban it?

What about if rights to a trial lead to a guilty person going free who then kills someone?

[jpak]

4. If people fear guns on campus then they are harmful

yup

[NewMoonTherian]

19. That's a pretty dangerous idea to the pursuit of freedom.

A lot of people fear a lot of civil rights. Are you sure you want to stick with that?

[jpak]

40. Freedom from fear is the most fundamental right

yup

[NewMoonTherian]

52. Well then, let's provide psychiatric care for people with an irrational fear of guns. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

125. What's irrational about fearing a gun?

Especially when it is pointed at you, or in the hands of a nut job, which apparently happens from time to time.

[NewMoonTherian]

126. In healthy people, fear is a reaction to danger.

In phobia sufferers, fear can come as the result of something that doesn't present a legitimate threat.

Certainly, if a gun is being pointed at you, that is a cause for fear. If a person has a gun and is behaving in an erratic manner, that's also cause a perfectly reasonable cause for fear. These events certainly do occur.

However, a gun holstered on the body of a duly licensed person who is behaving normally, not threatening anyone and carrying out ordinary tasks is not a legitimate cause for fear. Nor is the idea that a gun might be concealed on the body of the same, duly licensed person. These aren't necessarily phobias, but merely the result of ignorance regarding the people and the situation. It can be remedied through education and understanding.

[guitar man]

53. horseshit

"Freedom from fear" has been peddled by despots, dictators and monarchs throughout recorded history. No such freedom exists, neither does a right to this nonexistent "freedom", and untold numbers of subjects and slaves have been created in it's pursuit. :eyes:

[Starboard Tack]

127. Freedom from fear cannot be bought or sold

It is not a right, but a personal acquisition known only to the individual.

[GreenStormCloud]

62. Where is that in the Constitution? N/T

[oneshooter]

90. "We have nothing to fear.........exept fear itself. FDR n/t

[Ken_Fish]

91. Better start killing clowns and spiders. Those scare the shit out of me.

that and the dream where you are underwater. can you get that banned too?

[Union Scribe]

145. So...I should cancel Silky the Spider Clown

for the Gungeon party?

[X_Digger]

146. ...

[Union Scribe]

147. Lol, See I didn't even dare enter that into Google Images.

You are of sterner stuff than I.

[YllwFvr]

96. then I say ban religion

I am more fearful of that. Those people can be serious whack-jobs. Its unnerving when someone turns every single conversation into an attempt to "save" someone. thump thump thump thump that bible buddy! Hutaree comes to mind. What happens when you believe too much

[spin]

158. Strange, I don't see that in my copy of the Constitution. Maybe you have a different version.

By the way as you well know ...

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
Published: June 28, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

For hours on the night of June 22, 1999, Jessica Gonzales tried to get the Castle Rock police to find and arrest her estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, who was under a court order to stay 100 yards away from the house. He had taken the children, ages 7, 9 and 10, as they played outside, and he later called his wife to tell her that he had the girls at an amusement park in Denver.

Ms. Gonzales conveyed the information to the police, but they failed to act before Mr. Gonzales arrived at the police station hours later, firing a gun, with the bodies of the girls in the back of his truck. The police killed him at the scene.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

[SteveM]

163. Who says? Provide cites/links. nt

[Bold Lib]

24. Robert Bork would agree with your logic.

I do not.

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. Or J.R.R. Tolkien- guns cloud thought, per a certain DUer.

Apparently, Sauron fled Middle Earth and invented firearms sometime around the 12 Century C.E....

or so I've been told.

[jpak]

42. Then you disagree with laws against terrorist activities?? Do the terrorists win too?

:shrug:

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Glassunion]

101. So... Do you agree with all of the Republican laws and rules and special powers

That they wrote and exercised? Everything they did was all in the name of keeping you safe. It's all good right?
Patriot Act
Roving Wiretaps
DHS letters
No warrant sneak and peeks
Blackwater
TSA rubdowns
Government blacklists
Etc...

Everything I listed was all done in the name of your safety. Do they make you feel safe? What's the Constitution? "just a god-damned piece of paper" am I right?

[SteveM]

164. I agree with laws against crimes; sort out the "terrorism" shit after the verdict.

[DonP]

98. Hey, don't bad mouth jpak's spiritual guide and father figure.

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. Would you say the practice is a "moral harm"? n/t

[Bold Lib]

5. Four replies so far and NOTHING. Says a lot right there doesn't it?

Normal straw man, diversionary blame the NRA B.S. is all the prohibitionists have.

[friendly_iconoclast]

10. I expected the pettifoggery and bafflegab. I thought there would be at least 1 legit reply by now.

It would appear that all those wailers of "OMG, there'll be blood in the study carrels" didn't actually have any evidence

when they were busily predicting Armageddon At The Student Union.

[Pullo]

49. That's giving most the anti's around here of late way too much credit n/t

[lawodevolution]

6. because guns are bad and why do we have to arm everyone at universities because

this law would arm everyone! The blood will run in the dorm rooms!
Who is going to stop the toddlers with CHLs from taking guns to their classes? What about foreigners? Do you want foreigners packing heat? and 18 year olds are not trustworthy with guns in classes, ok.

What you will get is nothing but ignorant, emotional statements like, yeah, everyone in class should be armed. They have no arguments, and can only run on the hope that the people who hear about this law are ignorant of the details. I have not heard one argument yet that did not involve ignorance.

On the radio in El Paso I was listening to 104.3, the people who called in against CCW on campus came up with the arguments that 18 year olds can't be trusted with guns, people born in Juarez can't be trusted with guns on campus and that frat parties will end up in shoot outs. The minimum age for a CHL is 21, if someone is born in Juarez and can get a CHL they are just as trustworthy as anyone else with a CHL and frat parties occur off campus where no permit is needed to have a gun.

[rl6214]

35. Hola

:hi:

Fellow El Pasoan here.

[friendly_iconoclast]

7. When y'all manage to come up with a non-evasive answer, do be sure and post it directly.

TIA!

[Starboard Tack]

9. What kind of "empirical" evidence do you need?

A body count?
The very idea of taking a gun to school is sick, sick, FUCKING SICK!!!
Don't you people get it? If you leave your guns at home, you won't be tempted to shoot anyone at school, or church or the mall. And the rest of us sure as hell don't want to tempt you. Hell, we don't even want to argue with you.

[Glassunion]

12. Question

Take guns out of the equation completely. Could you murder another human being without cause?

[Starboard Tack]

21. No. Murder requires premeditation and malice aforethought

I could kill in self defense or in defense of another. It would not be premeditated and I would not want or need a gun. To use a gun, in my opinion, would be way too easy and far less satisfying. Had a conversation with a denizen of this forum last week who was proud to explain that he used his "weapon" to dissuade some kids from stealing some tools. Imagine him in school, thinking maybe someone's looking over his shoulder.

[Glassunion]

28. I'm sorry, I worded the question wrong.

Take guns out of the equation completely. Could you "kill" another human being without cause?

[Starboard Tack]

33. No I couldn't

But I have seen gun owners, some of them friends, run the risk of doing that many times. There's a popular sport in this country that involves getting wasted, then driving down the highway shooting at road signs. Southern Ohio comes to mind.

[Glassunion]

43. Your anecdotal evidence aside about the past times of those from Southern Ohio...

You say that YOU could not kill another human being without cause.

Yet, you imply that due to the simple fact that others have firearms they would be tempted to do so. "If you leave your guns at home, you won't be tempted to shoot anyone at school, or church or the mall."

Personally, I am much like yourself that I could only kill in self defense or in defense of another.

However you and I differ in that I would most likely need a gun due to my lack of ninja skills and bad back. Also you I differ in that I would find zero satisfaction in killing in self defense. Should the need ever arise that I would have to take another life in any way in self defense. The situation would absolutely be quite traumatic and depressing.

[Starboard Tack]

63. Almost got me there on the satisfying thing

But I must admit that if I killed someone in self defense, any satisfaction I felt would stem from being alive, not from killing. I also have back problems and zero ninja skills, but I have been in many situations when I felt my life was threatened, by people with guns, machetes, knives, bullies, gangs, gung ho cops and out of control mobs. I'm still here, in one piece, but I doubt I would be had I been armed during many of those confrontations.
Thankfully, you folk have a code about not shooting an unarmed man. So, I go unarmed and treat people with respect. Seems to work.

[Glassunion]

99. You must have some ninja skills to get out of those situations... Unless you are like me

And can talk your way out of almost anything.

Once in my life, my talking skills failed me. Today I have a bad back and an Xray of my head looks like a jigsaw puzzle.

The only other time in my life I was beaten was by a police officer. But, I had it coming(as did he) and we both declined to file a complaint.

[Starboard Tack]

130. I guess I am much like you

Always managed to talk and/or walk away from situations. Believe me, the temptation to carry has popped up many times and I resisted. Mainly, because I had been able to walk away unscathed and when rerunning the scenarios, some would definitely have turned bloody for someone if I had been armed.
Sorry about your misfortunes. Major bummer. But I gather you were not armed during the incident with the cop.
Stay safe

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. We don't have to imagine it. There are college classrooms *today* with armed students in them.

IIRC, there are forty or so colleges that allow this already. I asked for news accounts of these students causing problems,

and I've yet to get one example.


I know that CCW holders aren't saints, so I'd imagine there may be a few verifiable examples to be had on the intertubes.

Why don't you go find some and post them? That's all I asked.

[Callisto32]

74. "...far less satisfying..."

Jeeze, man.

Using a gun for defense isn't about the "satisfaction" of harming something. Harming an animal feels bad, if you are normal. It does not matter, the method. It feels just as bad to shoot a groundhog as it does to decapitate a duck. Harming a non-human animal sucks. Having to defend yourself from a person sucks. These two things I know. Having to harm a human while defending yourself? That has got to be the lest satisfying possible scenario I can imagine.

You started a comment above calling others sick. Perhaps we should concentrate on the planks in our own eyes...

[oneshooter]

94. That was me. 2-1 odds both had knives. My tools are my livelihood.

Did it once, will do it again. Nobody harmed because the overwhelming force was mine.

And they knew it, and decided that "discretion was the better part of valor". I could have taken them on with a pair of knobkerrys,but then I would have put myself in CQC, and at 58 I don't do that unless I am forced to.

If YOU don't like it then tough shit on you.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

15. How is it "sick, sick, FUCKING SICK!!!"?

Is that a substantiated charactarization... or is it just rooted in your irrational fears/prejudices?

And, no... a body count would be poor empirical evidence unless you could substantiate that the body count was due to the policies being proposed (licensed concealed carry allowed on campus).

I've toted my gun to the mall and church... never was tempted to shoot at anything.
I even had a Concealed Handgun License way back in college.
:shrug:

[Starboard Tack]

26. Then why on earth did you "tote" it?

I prefer a camera myself. Lots to shoot and nobody gets hurt.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

32. Because I wanted to. It's as simple as that.

Gives me greater ability to defend myself if the situation arises and there are no alternative means of safety.

Trust me, if I felt that it were actually likely I would be assaulted... I would not even go in the first place.

[GreenStormCloud]

72. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I carry a gun AND a camera at all times.

[speltwon]

108. I also carry a pocket CPR mask and know CPR

Relatively small chance I'll have to use it (not a lifeguard any more since college) but at least I am prepared.

[Starboard Tack]

128. Good for you

Just make sure you don't get them confused

[speltwon]

107. Even a "correlation" would be SOMETHING

iow, if the anti's could show that locales that allow CCW on campus have higher on campus violent crime rates (especially gun crimes) that wouldn't PROVE causation, but it would at least be SOMETHING towards suggestion and further study. Yet, NOBODY here who is decrying gunz on campus can even provide that. There are many many campuses with legal CCW. And yet... evidence ... ZERO. Not even thin, it's nonexistent. That says pretty much everything

It's kind of like how the anti's claimed that blood would run in the streets (Florida being a good example) if there was legalized "shall issue" CCW. But it didn't happen. They made the exact same claims about castle doctrine laws.

It is amazing how (supposed) liberals who are supposed to be part of the reality based community turn into faith based magical thinking types when it comes to their pet fear - guns.

[lawodevolution]

18. yep, acting out, cussing, no data, no facts no evidence

that's a good example of Faith based argument.

"we don't even want to argue with you"

lol.

[Starboard Tack]

30. You want facts. OK

Now concentrate and think hard about this.
If nobody has a gun, nobody gets shot.
If some people carry guns, the possibility of someone being shot now exists.
You don't even need to go to school to figure that out.

[friendly_iconoclast]

31. Those aren't facts- that's logic. I asked for news accounts of actual harm.

Which would elevate your argument from "I don't think it's a good idea", to

"I don't think this is a good idea, and here's some examples why..."


The demonstrable trumps the theoretical, in my estimation. YMMV.

[Starboard Tack]

67. Sorry! Did I use logic? How remiss of me

[petronius]

78. Logic in a formal sense perhaps, but based on a flawed assumption

If your logic was to be useful, we'd have to assume that the opposite of 'allowing CCW' is 'no guns at all,' which is clearly not the case. Without that assumption, your conclusions become moot.

You could alter your argument to say that the possibility of people being shot increases (as opposed to 'comes into existence'), but then you'd need to make some more assumptions, those that are being specifically called into question by this OP.

So yes, you performed an exercise in logic, but any professor of philosophy would give it a C at best...

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

34. How can you ensure "nobody has a gun"

The best we can do is write laws to ban commonly available items.
But criminals disobey laws and the items are both commonly available & desirable.
I guess some people, the ones we ought to be about with guns, WILL have guns.

You don't even need to go to school to figure that out.

[lawodevolution]

37. Virginia tech was a no gun zone, lots of people were shot there

so your no gun zone = no shots does not work out does it

[lawodevolution]

38. here's one, if there are no penises there will be no rapes (by a penis)

[Bold Lib]

39. Question:

How would you make all the homemade bombs disappear like the ones used in Columbine.

48 -- Carbon Dioxide bombs
27 -- Pipe bombs
11 -- 1.5 gallon propane bombs
7 -- gas or napalm bombs
2 -- 20 pound propane bombs

[AtheistCrusader]

54. Collorary: If nobody has a gun, and someone shows up against the law with a gun and malice

LOTS of people get shot.

[cleanhippie]

59. When you figure out how to get guns out of the hands of criminals, you MIGHT be on to something.

[GreenStormCloud]

75. So human violence didn't exist before guns were invented?

If nobody has a gun, nobody gets shot.
Instead they get sliced or stabbed with a knife or beaten with a club or stompped with feet. But that kind of violence must be OK with you as it isn't gun violence. My guns can be used to defend myself from such attacks.

If some people carry guns, the possibility of someone being shot now exists.
Yes, I now have the possibility that I might have to shoot someone who violently attacks me with deadly force. But that is NOT a bad thing. You do not distinguish between bad shootings and good shootings.

[mediator]

89. If nobody has a knife, nobody gets stabbed

ad nauseum

[Common Sense Party]

100. If nobody has hands, no one gets punched.

If nobody has teeth, no one gets bitten.

If nobody can breathe or move at all...problem solved, I guess!

[PavePusher]

119. And your plan to get criminals on board with this is...... ? n/t

[Euromutt]

123. The moment you said "if," you ceased dealing in facts

The whole point of legislation permitting CCW on the campuses of institutions of tertiary education is that the imposition of "gun free zones" has failed to achieve the condition upon which your argument hinges, to wit that "nobody has a gun." The fact is that some people, intent upon committing a criminal shooting, can and do bring a gun (or two) onto campus--in violation of the law and/or regulations--and the result is that people can and do get shot.

So that particular genie's out of the bottle, and it's no good pretending that hampering legal CCW on campus is going to keep it in or push it back in, even partially.

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. That was "empirical", not "emotional". And you don't have any of the former.

Let me guess: You just 'know' it's a bad idea, and will (somehow, for some unspecified reason) result in bloodshed -

without having any examples to point at from the colleges and universities that already allow it


A variant of the "guns are the Rings of Sauron" line....

[Starboard Tack]

56. Well done. Sounds like you get it.

Though I have no idea what the Rings of Sauron is/are

[Glassunion]

64. Rings of Sauron

Sauron: A character from some books...
The Hobbit
The Fellowship of the Ring
The Two Towers
The Return of the King
The Silmarillion
Unfinished Tales
The Children of Húrin

As part of a plan to seduce the Elves into his service, Sauron assumed a beautiful appearance as Annatar, "Lord of Gifts,"<26> befriended the Elven-smiths of Eregion, led by Celebrimbor, and counselled them in arts and magic. Sauron hinted that he was an emissary of the Valar, specifically of Aulë, whom the Noldor in Exile held in high regard. Some of the Elves distrusted him, especially the Lady Galadriel and Gil-galad, the High King of the Noldor. The Elves in Eregion, however, did not heed their warnings.

With Sauron's assistance, the Elven-smiths forged the Rings of Power, which conferred great power upon their bearers. He then secretly forged the One Ring in the volcanic Mount Doom in Mordor. This "One Ring to rule them all" had the power to dominate the other Rings and enslave their wearers to Sauron's will. The Rings of Power were extremely potent, however; to create an instrument that could dominate even them, Sauron was forced to transfer a great part of his native power into it. Yet "while he wore it, his power on earth was actually enhanced".

When Sauron put on the One Ring, the Elves saw him for who he really was, removed their Rings, and did not use them for as long as Sauron retained the One Ring. Enraged, Sauron initiated a great war and conquered much of the land west of Anduin. This began the Dark Years. He overran Eregion, killed Celebrimbor, leader of the Elven-smiths, and seized the Seven and the Nine Rings of Power that had been previously forged with his assistance. The Three Rings, however, had been forged by Celebrimbor himself without Sauron's help. These rings were saved and remained in the hands of the Elves, specifically Gil-galad, Círdan, and Galadriel.

Sauron besieged Imladris, battled Moria and Lórien, and pushed further into Gil-galad's realm. The Elves fought back, however, and with the aid of a powerful army from Númenor, they destroyed Sauron's army and drove the remnant back to Mordor. The Númenóreans were descended from the Three Houses of the Edain who helped the Elves in their war against Morgoth. They lived on the island of Númenor in the seas between Middle-earth and Valinor, and theirs was the most powerful kingdom of Men at this time.

Later in the Second Age Sauron gave the Nine(rings) to powerful men, kings and sorcerors, including three from Númenor, all of whom fell swiftly under the rings' domination.

One Ring to rule them all,
One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all,
And in the darkness bind them.

[slackmaster]

41. Are you projecting your own violent impulses onto other people?

If you leave your guns at home, you won't be tempted to shoot anyone at school, or church or the mall.

Either you are projecting, or you have a badly distorted view of the mindset of people who carry weapons for self-defense.

[rl6214]

51. You really don't know what concealed carry is about

First, grow up. This adds an awefull lot to the conversation, dosen't it.

"sick, sick, FUCKING SICK!!!"

Second, this post was for empirical data to support anti gun positions. This is just normal hand wringing and irrational projecting of what, your fears? I carry every single day and I have never been "tempted to shoot anyone at school, or church or the mall"

"If you leave your guns at home, you won't be tempted to shoot anyone at school, or church or the mall"

Third, carrying concealed means, concealed. "WE" are walking among you all day long, every day and you don't even know it because our guns are CONCEALED. So are you in fear the minute you walk out your door before you even encounted a single person?

[GreenStormCloud]

70. If I leave my guns at home I won't be able to defend myself if trouble comes to me.

Violent crime is a reality. You may deny it but people really to get attacked by criminals. I am too old to try to fight them off if it happens. But with a gun I can defend myself from young thugs. I refuse to be a good victim.

[Callisto32]

71. If you argued with me...

you would never know I was armed.

This is because merely having a weapon won't cause me to want to shoot you. You attacking me may cause me to want to shoot you, but the people who have CCW permits are, statistically, some of the least violent people in society.

[mediator]

82. All they need is a "Gun Free Zone" sign and nobody will ever violate the space.

Right?

[guitar man]

86. Right

Once the "gun free zone" sign is put into place, it throws up an invisible force field through which no one with a gun can pass :crazy:

[RSillsbee]

93. I carried a gun every day when I was in college

I was never tempted to shoot anyone.

[speltwon]

106. And yet, LOTS of jurisdictions allow CCW on campus and no "anti" here

can post ANY evidence that jurisdictions that allow CCW on campus are more dangerous. Heck, they aren't even posting ANY incidents of gun violence involving CCW'ers on those campuses. Not even an isolated incident, let alone evidence that such campuses are MORE dangerous.

Your side is the side of rhetoric and our side is the side of facts. Whether or not it "stands to reason" that allowing CCW on campus would result in "bad stuff" the FACTS are that it doesn't

[PavePusher]

118. It's not you we're worried about.

In fact, it's not about YOU.

[WatsonT]

154. Well there's the answer: empirical evidence from the grabber side = "sick, sick, FUCKING SICK!!!"

Hard to quantify that.

[nykym]

46. OK so at present there may be

no confirmable media accounts. But to think it will never happen is just hiding ones head in the sand. It will happen and it may happen to you. What then? How will you react? Is a gun necessary for one to obtain higher education? What function does a gun play in ones higher education?
I personally don't mind people owning guns but do believe that more can be done to keep them out of the hands of people that should not have them.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

47. What function does a gun play in buying groceries?

Or depositing a cheque into an account? Or shopping at the mall? Or walking your dog?

A person being allowed to have tools to adequetely defend themself does not mean that the tool must provide any utility otherwise.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. Firearms are for protecting human life.

In the hand of a teacher, or a law-abiding student, with a concealed carry permit, that firearm can be used to halt a shooter or other malicious attacker.

Yes, they will be most useful against people who are mis-using a firearm, but the proper, lawful and moral function of the USE of a firearm, is to protect human life.

Since we are talking concealed weapons, no one ever need know, so there will be no 'chilling effect' on academic freedom.

[DonP]

65. Try not to sound so hopeful

"OK, so at present there may be no confirmable ..." makes it sound like you're almost hoping something tragic happens to prove how evil guns are.

Well, you haven't had an accident .... yet kind of thinking.

Speaking of "hiding ones head in the sand".

You have noticed V tech, NIU and several other "gun free" campuses, where a maniac ignored your well meaning No Guns allowed signs and laws. Aren't you the person with your head in the sand, pretending that no one would ever really need to protect themselves on campus or going to and from classes, at night or in a less than safe environment?

[rl6214]

144. "What function does a gun play in ones higher education?"

Maybe keep them alive so they can complete their higher education.

[elias49]

57. What "empirical" evidence can you provide that people

who feel the need to carry weapons everywhere they go are not fearful, defensive, lacking in self-confidence and who check under their beds before they go to sleep at night?

[slackmaster]

60. My tax accountant got a concealed firearm permit after he was robbed

He was carrying a day's bank deposit for a business. Some thug pulled a gun on him and forced him to hand over his client's money.

He took the class, applied for a permit, and got it. He carried a weapon every day while he was handling cash, and never got robbed again. He was not fearful at all, just carrying a weapon in case he needed one. (If he had been operating out of fear, he would have quit the job.)

A good concealed-carry class teaches situational awareness and better ways to carry one's self in public.

[elias49]

69. If your friend had been carrying a gun the day he was robbed

I wonder if anything would have gone down differently?
If he's looking down the barrel of some fool's gun, would it help that he had a handgun in his briefcase?
Not being contentious. I think it's a pertinent question.

[slackmaster]

79. Yes. He received quite a bit of training, and is able to draw and fire his weapon very quickly.

He drilled extensively on drawing and shooting. He can do it much faster and more accurately than a typical street punk, who probably has had next to no practice and no formal instruction.

Punk would have probably ended up getting shot.

If he's looking down the barrel of some fool's gun, would it help that he had a handgun in his briefcase?

When he carries a gun, it's in a holster where he can get to it quickly.

[DonP]

61. So, you're basically saying you have shit for an answer?

You have no evidence of this ever being a problem on any of the campuses where it's been allowed for years. Your only objections are based on your own unfounded fears. Your only response is the equivalent of "Well, yeah, but you're the real scaredy cat", what the fuck are you 9 years old?

Duly noted.

[elias49]

66. Hey Don Thanks. I guess I know you now.

On the OP....want to do an experiment? You know, scientific method and all. Let's insist that every college student carry a concealed weapon. Let's try it for 10 years, let's say.
Will you and the OP be willing to be held responsible for any and all wrongful deaths or cripplings that occur on campus during that 'experimental' phase?
Yes or no?

[petronius]

76. Nobody has suggested that every college student be required to carry. And the experiment has

already been done - at each campus that currently allows (not requires) CCW. The OP is asking for any evidence to falsify the null hypothesis that allowing CCW will have no significant effect of increasing campus violence. If you're aware of that evidence, you should post it...

[DonP]

77. Well, that certainly more stupid shit for an answer

You should really drop it and stop embarrassing yourself, sounding like you actually hope for a shoot out of some kind.

The only people that EVER suggest arming everyone, including the underage and otherwise banned people are the gun control fans, like you.

No pro 2nd amendment person or anyone at the NRA ever thinks that way. I cold be wrong but some of the schools that allow CCW on campus may already have 10 years behind them. But gun control people predicted blood in the streets for every state that passed concealed carry. It just never happens the way they hoped it would. In fact it turns out that all those CCW people are much more law abiding overall than people without permits, like you.

I'd be a hell of a lot less worried about someone that was a 21 yo student, passed the required FBI background checks, took the required courses on safe gun carry and use, understood the laws governing the use of force in their state and qualified under the approval of a certified instructor, than I am about people like you, who may or may not be able to pass a background check.

[mediator]

84. It sure does APPEAR that many on the 'control' side are salivating for the next atrocity.

But it's not hard to understand, really...every time someone violates a 'gun free zone' and starts shooting, it's more ammunition (so to speak) for their hysterical agenda to 'clamp down' even more...but never manage to explain how more laws will deter criminals. It's irrational, but it's common.

[shadowrider]

103. Many on the "control" side already have their talking points out just

waiting for the next atrocity. I find it disgusting they're jumping on the wagon literally before the blood is dry.

[elias49]

85. So what's your answer?

Yes or no?
And calling me stupid isn't an answer.
Get your panties unbunched.

[DonP]

97. Nobody on this side has anything bunched - but thanks for using gender based slurs

It's so very progressive of you.

Nobody said you were stupid, ... it's just an incredibly stupid statement on your part. If you want to espouse giving guns to felons and underage children, feel free. I and any other law abiding gun owner wants no part of your criminal plans. I like the laws the way they are. But it's your imaginary experiment, go wild with it.

Campus carry is going to pass, get used to it, probably one school at a time, just like CCW in each state did. It'll pass, nothing will happen, and the next few states will gradually accept it.

What should we be upset about anyway.

In spite of all the whining and emotional outbursts, everything is going our way for the last 8 years or so. President Obama has signed more gun friendly legislation in 2 years than Bush did in 8 and, in spite of the Brady group's fondest dreams, he doesn't appear ready to flush his Senate majority and his 2012 chances down the crapper to keep a shrinking minority group that's far out of the mainstream happy.

In the meantime every state, even Illinois, has made major moves towards more liberal gun laws.

All that and the violent crime rate is at record lows.

Now that's something we can all be happy about, pro or anti, right?

[Katya Mullethov]

133. Prohi Tech #23

This is an excellent example of " The Gunwalker" , projected ad hominem technique .



"I've seen posters in the Gungeon that want violent felons and infants to be issued a weapon "

" Yeah , you did ........ It was YOU . "

"Nu-uuh-uuhhhhhh ."

[slackmaster]

83. That's ridiculous, elias49. For one thing, most undergraduates are too young to get a CCW permit.

The minimum age is 21 in all states that issue permits. Federal law prohibits sale of handgun ammunition to anyone under 21.

Nobody has ever seriously proposed forcing people who don't wish to carry a weapon to do so. You are promulgating the "if only everybody was armed" straw man.

[beevul]

149. Alternatively...

"Will you and the OP be willing to be held responsible for any and all wrongful deaths or cripplings that occur on campus during that 'experimental' phase?
Yes or no?"


Will you and the anti-carry anti gun types that support gun free school zones be willing to be held responsible for any and all wrongful deaths or cripplings that within them?

Yes or no?

Somehow I doubt it.

[spin]

68. What "empirical" evidence can you provide that those with CCW licenses are fearful? ...

Many of the people I know who have concealed carry permits and always carry are retired police officers who had 20 years or more on the force. I wouldn't describe any of them as "fearful" or "lacking in self confidence".

[Callisto32]

81. Get back to me...

when you prove that negative.

[petronius]

87. Actually, that's an easy one (and it's not actually proving a negative)

All that's needed to falsify that poster's hypothesis is one carrier who is not "fearful, defensive, lacking in self-confidence and who check under their beds before they go to sleep at night" - we probably have more than one person meeting that description here in the forum.

The related negative that would be unprovable would be to say that no carriers at all meet that description (since gun-owners are human too, there's probably at least one cowardly lion among the lot)...

[Euromutt]

120. Well, I don't check under my bed before I go to sleep

Except if my kid is missing one of his cuddly toys, that is.

[guitar man]

88. I was shot in 1986

By an armed felon while I was unarmed. Luckily I survived it. Had I been carrying my own gun in all likelihood I would not have been the one who was shot.

So yeah, I'm probably still a little fearful I may get shot again and now I carry a gun when I think I might need it.

[Ken_Fish]

92. And this is how its is won. Fellings are great

for choosing carpet, poetry, and on a first date.

When deciding policy solid data is a great thing. There are at least 10 years of ccw data that dont involve emotions.

[lawodevolution]

102. Still nothing

Not one piece of solid evidence that CCW would be bad on campus.

[Glassunion]

104. Here...

It makes ME feel icky...

[DonP]

110. Another celebration of the "Just because" rationale of gun control.

This thread has turned out to be a microcosm of most of the discussions we've had here.

The gun control people scream and rant and call the idea of law abiding adults being allowed to extend their carry rights to campus dangerous and stupid. We point out that it's already happening and nothing has happened to make it dangerous.

They "counter" with the utter irrelevancies of V Tech, NIU etc.

When you point out that those were all gun free campuses already, they shriek some more about how much worse it would have been if someone had a gun.

How the hell can anything be worse than being trapped by a maniac with a gun, plenty of ammo and no conscience - waiting to be executed?.

Then they lapse into absurdity, suggesting that "everyone should be armed all the time".

It would be nice if just once one of them would admit that crime is indeed at the lowest point in over 35 years, without sharing their pet version of why they are absolutely sure, (with nothing to back them up) that it has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with CCW permit growth. It's the phase of the fucking moon, the number of sand fleas on the beach, anything but law abiding citizens more able to protect themselves if confronted.

Sometimes these people scare me the way they seem to almost be hoping for tragic incidents, "Well it hasn't happened ... yet", like the Brady bunch who had their press release out less than 2 hours after the shootings in Tucson. They must have "fill in the blank" press releases and contribution e-mails ready to go at a moments notice.

[Glassunion]

111. PURPLE PANTS!!! OMG!!! PURPLE FUCKING PANTS!!!!

http://borderviolenceanalysis.typepad.com/.a/6a011279457f1228a401156f276fc6970c-pi

[friendly_iconoclast]

114. +1. Seven hours later AND NOT *ONE* FUCKING EXAMPLE OF REAL-WORLD PROBLEMS.

And frankly, I expected at least one or two- I have no illusions that CCW holders are angels.


But dayum, the way some carried on you'd think I suggested NRA members decimate classrooms in order to cut spending on

education.


I hope any disinterested observers out there take note at the emptiness of the Prohi's arguments....

[Katya Mullethov]

129. But it'll lead to harder stuff

Like constitutional carry ........ fuck yeah !

" Lord have mercy , is that what that is ? "

[rocktivity]

116. So shoot us.

By the way, why would it be better than what we've got?

:headbang:
rocktivity

[X_Digger]

117. Kick.. nothing? n/t

[lawodevolution]

121. they are out trying to use anecdotes the did not occur on campus

did not involve a handgun or CHL holder to argue their point. That is pathetic.

I don't think any real arguments against CCW on campus are going to show up anytime soon.

Texas and Arizona will be the next states to pass the law, then it will spread accross the country.

[Euromutt]

122. Indeed; almost twelve hours and not a sausage

Plenty of conjecture, unsupported assertion, and some spurious logic, but nothing in the way of evidence.

[Bold Lib]

124. Absolutely nothing.

[jpak]

131. Here ya go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=383349&mesg_id=383349

[lawodevolution]

132. A guy who HAD a CHL 10 years ago shoots someone on campus

How does that tie into the debate?

[friendly_iconoclast]

135. ...where it was illegal to carry. It doesn't tie in at all.

[lawodevolution]

136. It's a failure on several levels.

1. The attempted murder would have occurred with or without CHL on campus but with CHL on campus perhaps the victim would have had a chance at self defense.
2. The guy doesn't seem to have had a CHL when he committed the crime (just 10 years ago)

[friendly_iconoclast]

134. And sure enough, you tried the "illegal passed off as legal" scam:

(I was wrong about post #73- none of those happened at a college)

From the OP:

....P.S.: I'm going to set the over/under on the first appearance of an account of illegal gun carriage/use passed

off as legal carriage/use at the twentieth post. The pearl claspers seem to be fond of faith-promoting rumor,

and I expect an account of a 'legal' gun owner (who actually wasn't) doing something stupid and/or criminal to

appear in short order. Let's see how long that takes, shall we?

Let me guess, you didn't notice that handguns are banned at the college in the link you posted...

[friendly_iconoclast]

137. Three days later, and no one has managed to come up with any.

Unless and until someone does, I claim "Case proven"....

[friendly_iconoclast]

138. One week later, and *still* nothing save handwringing, hypotheticals...

...and horseshit. If the Prohis had anything, they would have been on it like ugly on a cheap suit.

[Hoyt]

139. About the same evidence as those who think meth on campus adds to the college experience.

[friendly_iconoclast]

140. *Two* weeks later- and the crickets are chirping....

Let it not be said the Prohis didn't have ample opportunity to research and support their assertions.

[friendly_iconoclast]

141. I'm going to go ahead and state that this evidence does not exist.

It's been nearly a month, and the prohis have had more than ample time to research and make their case.

They have not done so.

[Glassunion]

142. Sssshhhhhhhh... You're harshing their mellow.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=271x1989#2215 it's on!

[friendly_iconoclast]

148. Kicked. Still waiting on that evidence....

[Logical]

150. Me too. Let's try it, if it causes issues we can readdress it. n-t

[friendly_iconoclast]

152. Bumping due to this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x413810

[WatsonT]

155. This is an awesome post

no one came close to a real answer.

NOT. ONE. PERSON.

That is very telling.

[Simo 1939_1940]

Bumped as a reminder that the pro-restrictionists

failed to provide any empirical evidence whatsoever in response the the question posed by the OP

[Simo 1939_1940]

159. self-deleted duplicate post