Victory for Gun Owners: Criminal Charges Against Joshua Beck Dismissed!

[Hoopla Phil]

I am pleased to be able to report that yesterday, the Berkeley County Prosecuting Attorney's office dismissed both charges of carrying a firearm on school property that were filed over the last couple of weeks against Joshua Beck. Mr. Beck, as you will recall, is a 26-year-old student at Blue Ridge Community and Technical College in Martinsburg who was arrested on October 13 and again on October 17 on two separate felony charges under W.Va. Code § 61-7-11a(b).
http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs061/1102955222215/archive/1108334996385.html

Glad to see justice finally is served. I wonder if he will pursue civil charges against the colleges and/or police.

[ileus]

1. Excellent news for this young man....+1

[dtexdem]

2. A bad day for the country.

Gunnuttery gone wild.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

3. How do you figure?

They guy had a CCW, he was legally carrying a firearm in a legal manner in a legal location. The cops who arrested him did not know the law and violated his rights by arresting him in the first place.

It isn't "gunnuttery". It is called "things working the way they should".

Now, hopefully, Mr. Beck will find a good civil attorney and get a very large check from the cops who arrested him.

[gejohnston]

4. trumped up charges

not supported by the law is good for the country? You might want to look up what the word "liberal" means.
Oh that is right, injustice is OK as long as it is your "other."

W.Va. Code § 61-7-11a(b) applies only to "primary or secondary" schools (i.e., elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, and county vocational schools operated by the county boards of education for high school vocational education programs), not institutions of higher education such as Blue Ridge Community and Technical College--on whose premises both alleged offenses were alleged to have been committed.

[ileus]

6. A bad day will be if they rush a bill thru to ban carry now.

Today freedom won out....tomorrow may be different. Hopefully real gunnuttery won't prevail because of this.

[Atypical Liberal]

10. How so?

I do not understand this hostility against adults with concealed carry permits carrying concealed firearms on college campuses.

CCW permit holders have been shown to be hardly ever involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime.

If such people can walk down main street with a concealed firearm, surrounded by hundreds of their fellow citizens, why can they not do this on a college campus?

Many adults, like myself, attend night school these days after work. Many colleges and universities are in urban areas where crime is rampant. I don't see why people cannot carry a concealed weapon there just as they do when walking down a public street.

My classroom building at the University of Alabama Huntsville, where I have class 3 days a week, was the one where professor Amy Bishop brought her handgun to school and killed three people and wounded three others. No law or rule about bringing guns to campus stopped her. Nor will it stop anyone bent on mayhem.

It is absurd to prohibit the most responsible among us from doing so.

[Hoopla Phil]

14. No laws broken and you want what? A person tried for NOT

breaking laws? Really? Is that the kind of country you want, where a person that breaks no laws gets arrested and put through a trial?

[PavePusher]

16. So, you would create criminals by fiat?

I'm not sure this is the right website for you....

[Tuesday Afternoon]

18. pfft.

whatever.

[Euromutt]

19. Nulla poena sine lege

"No punishment without law." It's a fundamental principle of the Rule of Law.

[gravity556]

20. Awww, just because you think you can pick and choose

which rights you deign to allow the plebians to exercise doesn't mean it's a bad day for the country. In fact, seeing that a law abiding individual has been vindicated for exercising his rights pisses off the anti-civil rights bigots and pro-criminal safety clowns absolutely makes my whole fucking day.

Have a nice evening! :)

[AtheistCrusader]

23. FUCK DUE PROCESS

HELL YEAH

[DrDan]

27. could actually be a good day - perhaps this will fix the gap in this law

[Hoyt]

5. Great, another Young Republican gets off packing guns at an institution of higher learning.

[friendly_iconoclast]

7. Get sand in your Underoos when extralegal harrassment against rude toters is foiled, do you?

Good. May you have much chafing in your future, until people like you give up...

[We_Have_A_Problem]

8. Do you have....

....any proof that he is a young republican or that he was achieving orgasm by legally carrying his handgun to school?

No? Just more uncalled for and baseless claims? Sounds about right...

[ileus]

9. I can think of nothing worse

I can think of nothing worse than people attending an athletic event, living in a dorm, or sitting beside someone in a science class with a firearm strapped to their side or worse, concealed on their person. What happens if that student, parent or other person suddenly becomes angry at the score, the roommate, the party, or even the call on the field?

Please address this error as soon as possible and add the words: " post secondary" "post-secondary vocational or technical" "or other institutions of higher learning" to West Virginia Code 61-7-11a. Make an exception for a gunsmithing school, a hunter education or concealed weapon class, a military school only as it related to official firearms training or classes and ROTC only as to an official firearms training class (actual firing should be on a license or approved range).



I would be more than happy to help write the changes, if one or all of you would push it.



Thank you.



Sincerely



Pamela Jean Games-Neely



Prosecuting Attorney Berkeley County

[gravity556]

25. Mrs. Games-Neely sounds a bit unstable.

I can think of nothing worse than people attending an athletic event, living in a dorm, or sitting beside someone in a science class with a firearm strapped to their side or worse, concealed on their person. What happens if that student, parent or other person suddenly becomes angry at the score, the roommate, the party, or even the call on the field?

I mean, someone who can concieve getting that angry and becoming that violent over such trivial matters, perhaps she should not be an attorney. Why is it that the anti-rights crowd constantly insist that a law abiding carrier of firearms is going to just randomly go full bore apeshit? Is the concept of proportionate response and self control really that alien to them? I've never once thought about whipping out my sidearm out over some inconsequential bullshit, like a squadron of Prius drivers blocking all 3 lanes going 10 miles an hour in a 45 mile an hour zone simply because the light is red a mile away.

I might call them in to the non-emergency police number, since they're obviously too impaired to drive the speed limit and they are causing a hazard to navigation, but I would never even consider shooting at them. That's the fantasy of the "I'm anti-rights because I don't trust myself not to go on a shooting spree, so I can't trust others not to either. And since I'm the center of the universe and everyone behaves as I believe they do, guns should be banned" subtype of individuals who stamp their feet and proclaim that a firearm carried concealed constitutes a real, oh my gosh, call the police because I peed myself.

Seriously self absorbed and literally incapable of considering that their feelings do not constitute facts. And I tend to agree-those are exactly the kind of people who have no business carrying a firearm.

[DrDan]

28. sounds like a rational, thinking person

unlike those she is trying to protect us from

[ileus]

11. He was rude toter....ALL rude toters are goobers donja know.

[Hoopla Phil]

15. GREAT!!! An American citizen that broke no law gets justice.

Glad you agree.

[pennylane100]

12. Well I am definitely for banning guns on school property.

However, if the law allows it, the student should not have been charged. He did nothing wrong and the cops that arrested him should be disciplined for failing to follow the law. I think that anytime police arrest citizens for things that are clearly not criminal, they should be held liable for all the costs involved in their actions. That would cut down on police harassment that is happening much to often.

[oneshooter]

13. Why, can you show any problems on the 70+ campuses that allow it? n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. Nobody managed to when I asked that question here eight months ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=382537#382583

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


The disinterested reader will note that despite much ducking, weaving, spinning, shouting, handwaving and backtracking, no one
ever got much farther than "it harshes the mellow, man"...

[PavePusher]

26. Ahhh, feelings...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyBcHUe4WeQ

[Hoopla Phil]

17. The problem with such a ban (as has been demonstrated time and time again) is that

only the law abiding obey it. The result is that law abiding are at the mercy of the law breakers. Not the situation I condone.

[Simo 1939_1940]

22. pennylane - here's some info. you may find useful:

Many of the concerns that citizens have re. guns on campuses are unfounded.

http://concealedcampus.org/common_arguments.php

[AtheistCrusader]

24. How did you get lost, waylaid, or otherwise dragged in here?

You are entirely too reasonable for this venue.

I disagree with your opinion on wanting to ban guns on school property, however, I do not wish to debate you, only to stand in awe of you, and the sudden and unexpected influx of reasonable people this week. Thank you.

[DrDan]

29. agree - hopefully the cooler heads will amend that law to cover higher educational facilities

[We_Have_A_Problem]

30. Why?

Seriously, why? Why should adults be forbidden to carry a concealed weapon simply because they choose to attend school?

[DrDan]

31. that is not a true statement - they can carry their guns - but preferably

NOT on school property.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

32. Again - why not?

We're talking about adults here. Adults who are choosing to attend school. Their rights do not stop simply because they wish to better their education. What about those who work there? Should they lose their rights simply because they choose to work for a university?


If your only answer is that it is a school, that's pretty lame. How many universities have annex classrooms in a strip mall for example?


Either way - it was a question, not a statement.

[DrDan]

33. we are not going to agree

You think any restrictions on guns are "pretty lame". Do you not?

I think there are places where guns should be banned. This would start with schools - to include higher educational facilities.

You claim 2A rights. I claim a right to safety.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

34. I think restrictions without due process are wrong

It isn't a case of agreement. I'm looking for your argument to support your position.

WHY should those places be banned? You have not actually given a reason. A person does not lose his rights simply because he attends school, or works in one.

You have no right to safety DrDan, and in truth, such a thing cannot possibly exist. Life is unsafe and what makes you "feel" safe may make another feel unsafe. Like it or not, that is reality. Your feelings or desires do not trump my rights in public.

[DrDan]

35. we have unalienable rights . . .

Your "right" to carry a gun are trampling on those.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

36. Upon which rights am I trampling?

By all means, tell me. If you believe by carrying a gun I am affecting your rights, then tell me how.

How does your desire to feel safe (an utterly irrational and totally subjective concept by the way) somehow override my right to carry a firearm? Especially since I may be doing so in order that I may feel safe.

What right of yours is affected by my passive action of carrying a concealed weapon when I attend a class or simply go to work at the university?

[DrDan]

37. as I said, we are simply not going to agree on this

My unalienable rights are threatened by your need to carry.

Done.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

38. What rights?

Is that so hard of a question to answer?

If you cannot identify how your rights are threatened, or even which rights, then you really have no argument.

Seriously - I don't expect agreement. I am trying to find out how you believe your rights are affected. The last thing I would wish to do is violate your rights, so please, let me know what rights of yours are affected and how.

[YllwFvr]

39. the answer is obvious

no right is being trampled. unless dan means the "right to peace of mind" i hear some people talk about

[DanTex]

41. It's an easy question to answer.

It seems to be that you and DrDan have a basic difference of opinion on what constitutes an inherent right and what does not. That's it! Why is that so confusing?

You apparently believe that you have a right to carry a gun. That's fine. But a lot of people don't believe that.

On the other hand, you apparently don't believe that safety is a right. That's also fine, but again, a lot of people disagree with you, and believe that in a civil society, people have a right to things like safety, health care, education, food, shelter. In fact, the right to safety actually it appears in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

But even if the UN didn't say that, it wouldn't matter. In the end, what we have here is a difference of opinion about what is a right, what is not a right, and how to balance these rights with other societal concerns.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

42. Lets assume for a moment you have a right to safety

Ok fine. That means I do as well. So, how do we reconcile my right to safety with yours?

I believe and feel that carrying a firearm makes me more safe. You believe my carrying one makes you less safe.

Seems we both have to prove our position. I can easily prove that my carrying a gun does not, in fact, harm you. My misuse of it MAY, but that is not what we're dealing with. The physical act of carrying one harms you in no tangible way.

You, on the other hand, cannot prove that it does. Sure, you can present information regarding how the misuse of a firearm by others has harmed other people, but that is not the same thing is it?

At the end of the day, there is no direct harm to you by my choice to carry one. Hence, you get to deal with it the same way an atheist has to deal with a private individual's desire to wear a religious symbol.

[DanTex]

43. Again we have a difference of opinoin.

My opinion is that a classroom in which people are allowed to carry guns is more dangerous than a classroom in which guns are prohibited, and so public safety is best served by not allowing guns. I'm sure you disagree, but that's just the point: we disagree.

Sure, maybe you would never misuse your gun, but that doesn't mean nobody else will. Moreover, you can't guarantee that your gun might not go off accidentally, or that you might not, in a split-second decision, mistakenly respond to what you believe is a threat by firing your weapon, thus putting everyone at risk. And so on.

The fact that I don't know for sure whether or not you or anyone else specific might misuse a gun at any given time is completely irrelevant. Guns present a risk, and uncertainty is an inherent part of that risk. Safety involves managing this uncertainty so as to minimize the chances of harm. I also believe in traffic lights and speed limits, which, although they do slightly restrict individual freedom to travel, do benefit public safety. No, I can't prove that without speed limits, that you or any other specific driver would crash into me, but that doesn't matter, what matters is that the overall risk would be greater.

Religious symbols are a totally different thing, since they have nothing to do with public safety.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

44. So we've gone from...

...your right to safety to the nebulous "public safety".

As far as public safety goes, that rather raises the bar. It places the onus upon those who would restrict a right to prove the restriction actually has a benefit. Traffic lights and speed limits provide easily proven benefits to managing traffic flow if nothing else so they aren't really a good example.

A better one, honestly, is alcohol. Just like a firearm, it is harmless when used responsibly. The only time it creates a genuine health risk is when used irresponsibly.

A legally carried firearm is just like a bottle of bourbon in my pocket - completely harmless to me and anyone else unless I misuse it. If I decide to drink half of it then drive, well - that's a different story.

Banning public carry of firearms is not analogous to having laws against drunk driving. It is analogous to forbidding people from having a closed bottle of alcohol in public.

[DanTex]

45. Still a difference of opinion...

I really don't care at all about your opinion of whether public safety is "nebulous" or not. To me, public safety is more important than your right to carry a gun. And I base that on my belief that safety is, in fact, a human right in a civil society. I know you disagree.

And, yes, gun control laws do have proven benefits. There are dozens of studies about this, and many are done by the same kinds of public health researchers that earlier documented the safety benefits of different kinds of traffic laws and also things like crumple zones and air bags. I get that you don't accept any of the gun studies or the statistics I'm talking about. That's why I keep saying that we have different opinions.

In fact, I would compare this to the global warming debate: the people who resist gun control are by and large the same people that are opposed to reducing carbon emissions, generally on the similar grounds that the evidence that guns/CO2 pose a threat is not conclusive and thus the science doesn't justify any restrictions on the "right" to carry around a gun/pump CO2 into the atmosphere.

That is the heart of the matter. Whether or not restrictions on guns actually improve public safety. I think they do. You think they don't. And we can probably agree that neither one of us is going to convince the other any time soon.

As far as the alcohol analogy, you realize that driving drunk is completely harmless until you hit somebody. For all you know, I might be an excellent drunk driver. I could be completely plastered, one lane over from you, and you'd never know it. Why should you restrict everyone's "right" to drive drunk just because a few idiots can't handle their liquor? What's next, a law against driving a car on an empty stomach? It's creeping fascism, I tellya!

[We_Have_A_Problem]

46. Moving from...

..a violation of your individual rights to public safety is not a difference of opinion, it is a radical difference in scope.

Even giving you the idea that safety is a human right, how is that safety guaranteed? You're suggesting that I must give up what I consider my safety to help you feel safer, when the reality is, both of us are now less safe.

Incidentally, I agree with you on drunk driving. It is perfectly safe until you hit someone, and i believe the current standard is absolutely absurd. 2 drinks is not even impaired for most adults, yet legally you're drunk.

If you could assure me that my safety would remain even while you take away my self defense tool, then we might reach a consensus. However, what you're basically saying is, in order for you to feel safe, we both must have no way to defend ourselves against those who would do us harm. That isn't safety - it is merely removing my choices so we are both equally hampered.

[DanTex]

47. Not surprisingly, I still disagree.

Once again, I can appreciate that you don't think that public safety is an rights issue, and that gun ownership is. So I'll ask you to appreciate that, in my opinion, public safety is a rights issue, whereas gun ownership is not. Then we can happily disagree.

Even giving you the idea that safety is a human right, how is that safety guaranteed? You're suggesting that I must give up what I consider my safety to help you feel safer, when the reality is, both of us are now less safe.

Actually, your opinion is that both of us are now less safe. As I'm sure you've guessed, I have a different opinion.

Incidentally, I agree with you on drunk driving. It is perfectly safe until you hit someone, and i believe the current standard is absolutely absurd. 2 drinks is not even impaired for most adults, yet legally you're drunk.

But I don't agree with "myself", I actually think that drunk driving laws are important, despite the fact that some people can drive fine after a few drinks. But I do think this is sort of analogous to carrying a gun. Some people may actually derive a benefit from driving drunk, because they can do so safely. In fact, for some really good drunk drivers, driving home drunk may even be safer than taking a taxi. But this is a pretty questionable benefit, whereas the risks to public safety from drunk drivers are well documented.

If you could assure me that my safety would remain even while you take away my self defense tool, then we might reach a consensus. However, what you're basically saying is, in order for you to feel safe, we both must have no way to defend ourselves against those who would do us harm. That isn't safety - it is merely removing my choices so we are both equally hampered.

It's not in order for me to feel safe. It's for me (and everyone else) to actually be safe. What you keep doing is mistaking your opinion for fact. As I see it, for most people, carrying a gun doesn't really provide much of a safety benefit, it's mostly a psychological thing. On the other hand, the risk to public safety from guns is very real. So, for me, allowing guns in classrooms results in a very real risk to public safety, just so that a few people can feel safer by carrying a gun.

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. If "allowing guns in classrooms results in a very real risk to public safety"...

...then it should have produced some deleterious effect by now, given that 70 or so college campuses currently allow
the practice. Where and when has it?

[Oneka]

51. He cannot answer your question

without his agenda losing any credibility it had. His agenda is much more important than my rights.

[DrDan]

53. do you believe in the concept of unalienable rights? obvously not.

So we disagree. Pure and simple.

[Hoopla Phil]

69. But you agree with Robert Bork??? How very interesting . . .

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. That sounds perilously close to Robert Bork's theory of "moral harm".

To quote Dan Baum in the August 2010 issue of Harper's:

...My friends who are appalled by the thought of widespread concealed weapons aren't impressed by this argument, or by the research demonstrating no ill effects of the shall-issue revolution. "I don't care," said one. "I don't feel safe knowing that people are walking around with guns. What about my right to feel safe? Doesn't that count for anything?"

Robert Bork tried out that argument in 1971, in defense of prosecuting such victimless crimes as drug abuse, writing in the Indiana Law Journal that “knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral.”

It’s as bad an argument now as it was then. We may not like it that other people are doing things we revile—smoking pot, enjoying pornography, making gay love, or carrying a gun—but if we aren’t adversely affected by it, the Constitution and common decency argue for leaving it alone. My friend may feel less safe because people are wearing concealed guns, but the data suggest she isn't less safe...

[RSillsbee]

50. First, you don't HAVE a right to safety

Second I think it's quite interesting that you don't seem to be able to articulate why you don't think it's OK for a law abiding adult to carry a handgun on a college campus?

I will admit my bias because I went to one of the 70 schools that allowed CCW on campus and did carry every day

[DrDan]

52. some of us believe in the concept of unalienable rights - some of us (you) don't

very simple.

[RSillsbee]

55. Nice dodge

If you have a "right to safety" than every criminal trial for assault would be a civil rights violation as well.

[DrDan]

56. nice dodge - so do you or do you not support the concept of unalienable rights

[RSillsbee]

60. Yes I do

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

What I don't believe is that safety is one of them. I also don't believe that my carrying a gun violates whatever right to safety you believe you have.

[DrDan]

61. hence our source of disagreement - I DO believe that safety is inherent in those rights.

And my right to that safety is violated by you carrying a gun.

[RSillsbee]

64. Ok What causes you to believe that you have an inherent right to safety

We'll leave the second part "And my right to that safety is violated by you carrying a gun." alone because we'll never agree on that one no matter what but i'd like to hear your thoughts on the first

[DrDan]

65. This is part of a K-12 curriculum from a Michigan school District - and I think it sums it up well

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

Mention the Declaration of Independence to most people and the first thing that usually pops into their minds are these seven words: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The Declaration tells us that we have these rights and it is the duty of our government to protect those rights.

Life

A good definition here would be that as Americans we have the right to live without the fear of injury or being killed by others. We believe everyone has the right to live. Seems simple enough but there are still too many countries around the world where this basic right is not the case. In the United States it is the primary responsibility of the government to protect the lives and safety of its citizens.

http://www.macomb.k12.mi.us/cc/cdv/cdv.htm

[DrDan]

66. and here are some words from a California attorney

"All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

I found it interesting that he refers to these rights as "inalienable" vs "unalienable". Without putting words in his mouth, I wonder if it is because he feels an individual can give up these rights - for example, give up the right to liberty by committing a crime. And not sure about his claim to obtain happiness. I can agree with pursue, but not so much "obtain".

http://www.toxictorts.com/index.php/about-us/articles/54-safety-for-all-the-people-the-constitutional-right-of-safety

I would think you would find quite a bit of agreement with his words.

[RSillsbee]

67. I agree w/ both examples

I agree that you (and I) have a right to live free from fear of being attacked (I don't remember the exact words) and that's why criminal penalties exist for attacking people, that's also why the law gives me the right to shoot you for attacking me.

I also believe that you have a right not to be placed in an inherently unsafe situation by my negligence or my deliberate criminal action (I.E. you have the absolute legal right to expect that every other driver on the road is sober even if they're not and you have the right to be compensated by the drunk driver if his actions cause a real, measurable, injury to you)

What I don't believe is that you have some right to just "be safe" because it's impossible to achieve unless I confine you to a bubble for life.

The legislature of my state (Colorado) has decided that a state funded school may not restrict my right to legally carry a concealed weapon on campus. It's settled law here. And in passing the law the state has decided that my simply sitting in class w/ concealed weapon hasn't negligently placed you in an inherently unsafe situation. I carried every class for two years and no one ever even knew.

I think we agree overall, we just disagree on where concealed carry on campus falls on the chart

[DrDan]

73. right - I think our disagreement is the role guns play in the expectation of safety

A right is not a guarantee. I have the right to expect a driver to stop at a stop sign - but that certainly does not mean that driver will do so. We cannot be guaranteed clean air and water - but that does not mean we do not have a right to clean air and water.

[DrDan]

57. so - I guess you believe that the OSH Act was passed based on a false premise

Do you call for the disbanding of OSHA?

[DrDan]

58. darn - looks like the California State Board of Education also disagrees with you

"It is the policy of the State Board of Education (State Board) that all students enrolled in public schools in California have the right to safe schools.'

http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ms/po/policy01-02-mar2001.asp

[DrDan]

59. seems as though the State of Tenn also disagrees with you

"You Have a Right to a Safe and Healthful Workplace"

http://www.state.tn.us/labor-wfd/newtoshaposter.pdf

[Hoopla Phil]

70. You've been doing a bit of research I see. So have you found ANY evidence

that a sigh has prevented criminals from doing bad things with guns? I'm still waiting for that. . .
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[DrDan]

72. that is a ridiculous request - but you knew that (well . . . perhaps you did)

[Hoopla Phil]

76. It is a ridiculous to request evidence??? Wow! I guess everyone is supposed to just take your word

for it right? Too bad you cannot find any evidence to support your position. Like I said, No wonder your side is loosing the gun control debate.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Hoopla Phil]

77. LMAO! How appropriate that this thread got resurrected. . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x382537

[Hoopla Phil]

49. Could you please give us an example of what collegenet mass shooting was prevented

by the posting of a "no guns" sign?

[DrDan]

54. so you want me to post an example of a potential gunman who changed his mind

because of reading a "no guns allowed" sign.

No wonder the NRA is so successful.

[Hoopla Phil]

62. I'd expect you to be able to give some sort of proof that what you

advocate works. I guess that's asking too much? I can cite several example of proof on how a sign does nothing to prevent bad people from doing bad things. So what evidence do you have???

[DrDan]

63. again, you are asking me to give you an example of someone who changed

their mind about a committing a shooting after seeing a "no guns allowed" sign.

Some sort of personal testimony, I guess.

Guess who is not going to waste their time on such a pursuit.

Again, little wonder why the NRA is finding success in their mindless messages.

[Hoopla Phil]

68. So you got. . . NOTHING??? You've had it your way for a very long

time. We know the results. Now it is time for an approach that may work much better.

With "evidence" like you provide it is no wonder why your side is loosing the gun control debate.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[DrDan]

71. could be the hard shift to the right currently underway in the U.S.

to include the conservative makeup in the Supreme Court.

[Hoopla Phil]

75. That is not evidence that supports your position. Why do you have none?

[DrDan]

78. as I said before, little wonder the RW/NRA messages are so effective

[friendly_iconoclast]

79. Because they have empirical evidence, where you advocate security theater?

Honestly, I'm getting tired of the firearms-averse insisting that the rest of us go along with their losing schemes.

You want to be General Custer, go find another army...

[Hoopla Phil]

80. Yes, they have evidence. What is it you have again? Excuses, faith bast belief? As I've said

No wonder the anti 2A crowd is loosing the gun control debate.

[Euromutt]

74. Are you also in favor of imposing security measures to enforce such bans?

Because therein lies the problem: we have ample evidence that merely making it a criminal offense to carry a firearm onto the grounds of an institution of tertiary education and putting up a bunch of "Gun free zone" signs does nothing to dissuade an individual who carries a firearm onto campus with nefarious intent. This should seem obvious; after all, nobody puts "burglary prohibited" signs on his house, for the simple reason that nobody thinks for a second such a sign would dissuade a burglar. If you want to keep burglars out, you invest in solid-core exterior doors, deadbolts, an alarm system, that sort of thing.

Curiously, when someone points out to college administrators that if they're serious about wanting to keep guns off campus, they're going to have to invest in security fencing, limited access points onto campus equipped with metal detectors et al. the standard response is something along the lines of "we don't want to turn the school into a fortress." Well, that's understandable, but that means you're not doing all you can--in fact, you're not doing anything at all--to actually keep guns off campus.

So what's your point of view, Penny Lane? Fences and metal detectors, yea or nay?