General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
SemperFly
 
SemperFly's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bingstudent View Post
Typical ... playing the race card

you mean what YOU did?


Quote:
Originally Posted by bingstudent View Post

But why hasn't anyone commented on how creepy it must be to sit in a classroom with a bunch of white dudes wearing empty holsters?
Old 04-26-2008, 12:22 PM SemperFly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#211  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

möbiustrip
 
möbiustrip's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Greg View Post
The point I was going to make (and I love to use this on hypocritical liberals) is that they're all for stricter gun control, but they couldn't give two shits about border security, allowing illegal firearms to be smuggled into the country. You foiled me with your "much tighter border control," though
You're not the first conservative I've disappointed by being reasonable.

Quote:
Drop the whole role playing bit, you sound stupid.
It's not any of your business what I do for a living, nor is it relevant.

Quote:
So you're telling me that all of the press that DC gets for it being a hotbed of crime is overly exaggerated? Christ.
Most press is overly exaggerated, period. You know this.

I am telling you the flak DC catches (from the gun lobby) for having crime and a gun ban is statistically totally illegitimate. Do you believe me?

Quote:
I'm not trying to claim that CCW prevents crime. Criminals who are so dedicated to go on a shooting spree may be beyond the point of caring whether they will be shot at or not, which is why crime happens in states with CCW laws in place. Still, you see them choosing to shoot up schools, not gun shows. There's a reason for that.
Okay, cool. Many people on your side of the fence do claim CCW prevents crime.

Do you claim conversely that gun bans encourage crime? That seems central to the "unarmed schools are an easy target" argument. I bring up DC because within the single variable we can isolate from the FBI's data -- popluation -- DC falsifies that thesis.

You could argue that a gun-free zone in a gun-filled city is not necessarily comparable to DC, and I would agree. In that case, why are universities special among gun-free zones, e.g. shopping malls, theme parks, some stadium events?

Quote:
I'd love to see people like you hold a meeting with all of the relatives of the victims of VT/NIU and tell them, using charts and graphs, that despite their tragic losses, all of their deaths were too statistically insignificant to make any major changes to protect students on campus.
Okay, as long as I get to follow you telling them legal gun owners like Cho should be encouraged to legally bring them to class.

Then you can explain why you want more people carrying guns, in spite of their own wishes:

opponents of guns on campus argue that their presence would dramatically increase violence in a variety of ways – from accidental discharges to fights being settled with bullets instead of fists. On their side are most university presidents and many law-enforcement officials, as well as academic research.

"The best science that we have says concealed carry laws do not save lives, as the proponents contend," says Jon Vernick, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore.

That conclusion, while controversial among gun advocates, was recently endorsed by the American Academy of Sciences


...because you're using the murders as a vehicle to defy a private institution's ability to self-regulate on the grounds that (1) it's taxpayer-subsidized (2) those policies override your property rights in a way you find perfectly acceptable in every analogous case in the nominally "private" sector.

I don't like fear politics. Leave the terrifying graphic imagery to the Brady Bunch.

But if you're willing to compromise, "CCW but no guns in dorms, sporting events" (article, page 2) is a reasonable place to start.
Quote:
There's a major difference when it comes to making a change in regards to what we're standing for, and safety advances elsewhere, in that ours doesn't cost any money to implement.
Free is always good. Incidentally I have a free solution to the border crisis, and while it's been repeated from Bill Maher to Neil Boortz, it'll never catch on with big business "conservatives" who prefer cheap labor to national security.

The thing is, 11 schools where CCW works says nothing general. What works in New York may not work in Kansas, and vice versa. Making this a constitutional issue via "PUBLIC! university" overrides local self-determination with a one-size-fits-all federal edict. That short-circuits a sound conservative principle. [Note, I don't apply this reasoning to every political issue.]

So if it works for your area, campaign your ass off. Don't tread on me because of some weird brotherhood among gun owners.
Quote:
I think you just don't like to read points you have a tough time arguing against. You don't feel that college shootings are statistically significant enough to warrant a major change, so why don't we adopt that same philosophy into other things?
I don't know what you're getting at, but no, I don't think an anomalous event involving guns justifies spinning the roulette wheel by encouraging more guns.

Quote:
More a claim than a prediction, but a laughable one at that. Don't make me wave the Swiss flag at you.
The quote was Basically my feeling, and I think I speak for a lot of people, is that any law which makes gun ownership normative does more harm than good, because assholes and idiots outnumber ethical, responsible people by a wide margin. Quit taking things out of context.

We're not Swiss. Or Japanese, or Canadian. We can't import another country's gun policy (or health care system, or tax code) and expect to duplicate their statistics.

The article's final sentence is important. Small US towns basically don't have crime (but the rare incident sends their per-capita rate off the charts, further muddying the statewide average).

Quote:
What, do you think as soon as this week is over the group will go back into their cocoons until the October protest? The Open Holster Protest is a biannual event that generates public interest. You're an idiot if you honestly think that's the only thing the group does.
Don't be touchy.

Quote:
That's your idea of an "unintended consequence?" Of course the number of firearms will go up on campus if CCW is allowed.
Thank you.

Ignoring the probability they occur -- what regretful things can happen where guns are? Limit your brainstorming to externalities. The assumption concealed carry permit holders are perfect actors can be treated separately.

It gets your panties in a twist that I'm arguing inductively when, empirically, "nothing has gone wrong before." I hear you saying you left the house unlocked yesterday, and no one robbed you, therefore you have no reason to lock the house today.

Am I fearmongering to say that's thoughtless?

Now what if it's my house, and you're just visiting?

Quote:
Are you trying to say that allowing CCW on campus will suddenly flood the number of licensed CCW holders, and create exponentially more individually owned firearms than were there before?
I didn't use the words "flood" or "exponentially," quit being sensational.

I am saying campus carry means more firearms, a point you just conceded with "of course" and a tard smiley.

Quote:
Ah. You're being a role-playing, holier than thou elitist. Gotcha.
You got me. Does that kind of thing score points in W[M]D?
__________________
I personally believe that there has to be a law that limits the power of the supreme court. -- R@$T@M@N
Old 04-26-2008, 07:13 PM möbiustrip is offline  
Reply With Quote
#212  

möbiustrip
 
möbiustrip's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soybomb View Post
You're guessing instead of looking for evidence. Why would that be unthinkable?
You win that one. I momentarily forgot that "ridiculous law" and "unthinkable law" are not mutually exclusive.

In this case, I guess they can write whatever paradoxical shit they want and it'll stick, but "you may carry a gun -- woops, we shall now charge you with carrying a gun" is bananas. It's like, I forfeit my license for DUI, but a DUI arrest does not carry an automatic DWLR.

Quote:
It isn't a case of "people with permits are always carrying legally." Laws that implement conditions of validity for the permit (ie: not on school grounds) is the very reason we're having this discussion.
Am I reading you correctly, that you suggest we do, like, "valid on school grounds, unless you're raping somebody?"

Quote:
Why not? Our drug laws have done nothing to make drugs hard to acquire or cause people to stop using them. All they've created is a violent black market
Which is not none. It's hardly optimal, but not none. Ever tried to get drugs and couldn't? That's at the very least successful sabotage of the free market.

I have drug positions we won't agree on, too -- similar in spirit, actually -- but let's stick to guns.

Quote:
I require no pressing, I'd support letting people with permits carry on planes. If you can show me some evidence that these people behave irresponsibly with their guns then I'll admit I was tit-salad stupid.
You're asking for a plane crash to prove a point. C'mon. There's no upside.

Quote:
I don't think it does much good at high school either but high school students are on a very different schedule, often not allowed to leave campus, and often don't have a big campus with a ton of different buildings. A high school can function more like the secure area of an airport where people are screen upon entering it and then stay there. A college campus generally works nothing like that.
So there are more buildings. Tons of corporate and government campuses follow this model.

Quote:
McDonalds and 7/11 don't take my tax dollars, they can demand all customers wear a chicken suit to shop there if they like.
Lots of businesses take your tax dollars, it's called corporate welfare. Then contractors: AT&T, Boeing, Lockheed, ...

Paying taxes doesn't buy you shares.
Quote:
I see no reason to believe that. People carry everywhere they go in life but don't really want to carry on campus?
Everywhere except gas stations, the mall, the bank, the gym, the post office, clubs, bars, sporting events, hospitals, your kids' school, ...

Everywhere meaning where?

Quote:
I strongly disagree, if you're trying to deprive people of having effective self defense I think you need a very compelling reason for doing so. It seems like being able to defend yourself effectively is a basic right.
Whatever reason compelled you not to bitch about every instance guns are banned on private and public property, apply that here.

If a guy breaks into your home and you want to turn him into Swiss cheese, go for it.

Quote:
Could you refresh my memory on which one you're thinking of where a normal well adjusted guy started shooting? VT is of course the most recent memorable one, and Cho wasn't legally allowed to have a gun.
Read carefully. Federal guidelines disqualified his psycho ass, state guidelines for reporting did not. The "announcement" is CYA, not that I'd feel any better with Cho falling through the cracks versus actually getting rubber-stamped due to a loophole in the system.

Quote:
Like it or not the people that pay for the college ultimately get to decide how its run...If you don't like working for the public there are plenty of private employers that will let you work with whatever rules you feel comfortable with.
The chain of command goes something like trustees -> board -> chancellor -> deans -> faculty, with the alumni association's money thrown in the mix. As a tuition-paying student, you're a customer. There are tens of thousands just like you.

I want you to have the option of attending Yosemite Sam's Rootin' Tootin' Hand Cannon University.

That said, professors in technical fields sacrifice a lucrative career in the private sector to beg for grants and have no control over where they live into their mid-30's. Academia's fragile bubble of liberal ######ude is the only reason to stay in this meat grinder.

The thought of entire Womyn's Studies departments vanishing in protest makes me smile. Otherwise, be careful what you wish for.

Quote:
Of course they aren't, the point is they easily could be if regular guns were cut off at the source. Just look at the UK and their problem with people converting replica guns to be firing weapons. People get what they want, especially if its something as primitive as a combustion chamber and a tube.
Not sure how we got on this tangent, but if bringing a potato gun to class will shut you up, let's do it.

Quote:
All it requires is the common sense that in an area filled with violent criminals that have no compunction in harming you, its prudent to have a means to defend yourself if necessary. Again I repeat, its not about guns, its about criminals.
You take violent criminals with no morality as primary. I take people with goals who act to maximize their own utility within their means.

Spree killers fit your definition, and in your definition crime is minimized by arming everyone.

My definition can't handle murder-suicides; they're an exception to any concept of self-interest I understand. But it does explain the poor guy who turns into a thief / robber when you hand him a pistol. It's difficult to advocate gun ownership from this perspective:

Code:
if (punishment * probability of getting caught < goal * probability of success) {
   do crime;
}
Part of that pauper-cum-criminal's utility is not getting shot, and that's what we're debating.

Overall, we're a nation of guns and our crime rate sucks. But locally you can find every combination of no guns / lots of guns, high crime / low crime.

The interplay between citizen A's right to self-defense (with a gun) and his right not to be assraped by citizen B (with a gun) is complex. Note citizen A carrying a gun in no way precludes his being assraped by citizen B.

There isn't one answer. It only makes sense to decide at the community level.

Quote:
You're guessing instead of looking for evidence again. There is a lot out there, I'd probably read the following journal article first Cramer, Clayton (Winter, 1995), "The Racist Roots of Gun Control", Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy 42 (2)
Okay. His attempt to parallel antebellum history with modern gun control is whiny and ludicrous.

"Even if they don't OVERTLY ADMIT being racist..." okay, Mr. Farrakhan. The brothers appreciate your Idaho Senate Republican ass looking out for 'em.

Quote:
Isn't punishing a drunk by removing his license and putting him a step closer to jail doing some good? It may not prevent his actions but it does provide us with eventual recourse that can.
That was my point. Prohibitions do have a preventative effect -- maybe 1%, maybe 50%; it's perfectly quantifiable if we had a reliable means to collect the data. So no, it's crazy to say people break laws, therefore outlawing things doesn't work and we might as well give up.

Quote:
Banks are private organizations, they can do whatever they like. I may or may not patronize them but I support their rights to have whatever dumb rules they like on their non-publicly owned property. So if there is no evidence that people with carry permits behave irresponsibly with their guns or commit crimes, just what is it you're worried about.
Overturning the status quo puts the burden of proof on you. I'm not why you feel like the university is your property, given that you sit behind a desk there 9-15 hours a week.

Quote:
I'm not looking for any sort of analysis, I'll settle for some simple numbers that aren't subject to bias. Show me conviction rates for permit holders for violent crimes, show me statistically significant numbers of them behaving irresponsibly with their guns and having their permits revoked. These are things that should be simple to show and are the necessary basis for your fears, if they are justified.
Oh okay. I'll just go mandate that the federal government collect and tabulate data states might not even ask their police jurisdictions to compile. Then I'll have a look. All so you can take your pet pistol to biology class then leave it in your car for eight hours because you can't bring it anywhere else.

Quote:
Thats a very strong statement. Why is it reasonable and safe everywhere else students might go? Why is asking for the means to defend yourself unreasonable?
I asked what the hell you mean "everywhere" up above. It's unreasonable because you don't make this demand anywhere else.

Quote:
Sorry, thats not your decision to make. You don't get to decide what protests are allowed on campus, police don't get to decide who needs 4th amendment rights, etc.
The decision's been made, and it wasn't mine. I'm trying to explain it to you. Public safety is hardly an issue of free speech or privacy. If you believed in this crusade past the warm fuzzy feeling protesting gives you, you'd carry your gun "don't ask, don't tell" and deal with the fallout after you became a hero.

Quote:
It seems like if its their money, it does.
They don't own the university any more than you or I own the DMV, post office, or police department.

Quote:
Isn't Nancy being tired of knowing she could protect herself but instead has to hope she is attacked next to a blue phone on the way to her car all the reason she needs to speak up?
I would ask Nancy, but Nancy can't keep track of her cell phone for six months. The responsible, self-aware personality of our ideal CCW holder makes her a poor mark and unlikely to be targeted in the first place.

Full disclosure, my experience with guns and college is rednecks unloading buckshot in the parking lot during keg parties.

Another of my wild fairy tales is that the number of accidents / losses from increased gun density among the young, wild, sex-crazed alcoholics at my university is at least as large as the number of times Nancy's robber-rapist gives her the opportunity to draw.


Quote:
And yet there is no blood spilling into the aisles in colleges where those students already are packing.
Do we have a list of these?

Quote:
You've made an extraordinary claim that these people will pose a danger on campus when they've demonstrated they've safe everywhere else...
I would think the exceptional traits that make CCW holders model citizens reflect the effort it takes to get the permit. Tell me if "gun ownership advocate" is a misnomer, but the more people carry guns, the more average and sub-average shitheads are carrying guns.

Quote:
I don't care what you want. If I'm paying for the institution
You aren't. It's not yours.

Quote:
My friend who leaves her grad school office late at night and walks through the parking lot doesn't need to be a helpless victim to a rapist because you have an unjustified fear of people with concealed carry permits.
Your friend might be a helpless rape victim precisely because the number of armed men around her increased tenfold, all thanks to your irrational fear your guns will someday be outlawed if you don't constantly push to expand your rights.

Remember kids, statistics say you get raped by someone you know, and statistics say women don't buy guns.

Quote:
The core issue remains. People are carrying concealed handguns in 48 states, some states have allowed it for years and some states have allowed it for decades. You've presented no evidence that these people are dangerous because of their weapon in their lives outside of school grounds and ignored that students already carry safely on campus in some states already. You fear these students anyway. You disregard this and insist that something is different because they're in geometry class. Your position seems to have no basis outside irrational fear.
My position, as I hope I've made clear, is that the gun lobby needs to step off my fucking nuts with the post-Cho damage control. It's fucking adorable you "don't feel safe" in a crowded area from 1:00 to 2:15 twice a week.

I don't tell your work what to do because I shop there, and your work isn't filled with people who just discovered they can drink legally and have sex without their parents finding out.

Quote:
I couldn't resist this as an edit:

Isn't the first person you call when you're in trouble someone with a gun?
Usually it's someone with jumper cables or a tow hitch.
__________________
I personally believe that there has to be a law that limits the power of the supreme court. -- R@$T@M@N
Old 04-26-2008, 07:13 PM möbiustrip is offline  
Reply With Quote
#213  

möbiustrip
 
möbiustrip's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyNavy View Post
Yes but what you've also conceded is that none of the data even begins to suggest that concealed carry increases the crime rates.
Correct. It comes down to ownership and these commies think they have a bigger vested interest than the faculty and a majority of the student body.

Quote:
And you also have to remember that there are schools that allow concealed carry and not a single one has had an incident.
I've read that here. Where's the biggest one?
__________________
I personally believe that there has to be a law that limits the power of the supreme court. -- R@$T@M@N
Old 04-26-2008, 07:15 PM möbiustrip is offline  
Reply With Quote
#214  

Soybomb
 
my this is getting long

Quote:
Am I reading you correctly, that you suggest we do, like, "valid on school grounds, unless you're raping somebody?"
Sure if it makes you happy go for it. I'm not sure what problem you're trying to fix with that solution but if it makes you happy....

Quote:
Which is not none. It's hardly optimal, but not none. Ever tried to get drugs and couldn't? That's at the very least successful sabotage of the free market.

I have drug positions we won't agree on, too -- similar in spirit, actually -- but let's stick to guns.
I honestly haven't, I'm not a drug user. I have friends that are and none have ever expressed any difficulty in getting drugs. Perhaps its harder to get cocaine and pot than I thought. I'll agree to stick to guns for now.

Quote:
You're asking for a plane crash to prove a point. C'mon. There's no upside.
How do guns on planes = plane crash? It seems like the helpless people on planes are the ones that have had their planes crashed.

Quote:
So there are more buildings. Tons of corporate and government campuses follow this model.
How many times did you come and go from campus during the day? I know I usually came and left 2-3 times most days, and usually barely got there with time to spare and certainly no time to go through check points. Even if I did I don't see what the point would be. We can't keep weapons out of jail and what good does a guy at a metal detector do to stop anyone who plans to kill people? Shoot the guy and keep going. You show me the state university that has successfully implemented a metal detector system and we'll talk. Again you disregard the safety of students outside of the building with it anyway.

Quote:
Lots of businesses take your tax dollars, it's called corporate welfare. Then contractors: AT&T, Boeing, Lockheed, ...

Paying taxes doesn't buy you shares.
Terms like corporate welfare and broad and sweeping, if you want to talk about a specific example bring it up, cite the money in question, and we'll talk about it. Until then it seems that some of the people that pay the bills are upset the employees think they should be helpless. You might not like it and might not think the people that pay you should be able to have an over riding say on the rules but thats the way it is.

Quote:
Everywhere except gas stations, the mall, the bank, the gym, the post office, clubs, bars, sporting events, hospitals, your kids' school, ...

Everywhere meaning where?
Pick any of those places and I can probably name several states where carrying in those place is legal. Do you think there aren't states where people carry in bars, clubs, hospitals, schools and banks? If you do you're uninformed. That is what I've been trying to hammer across in this thread. If you wonder how people behave when allowed to carry in a certain environment, there is probably already years of data out there from another state on it. Just like carrying on college campus.

Quote:
Whatever reason compelled you not to bitch about every instance guns are banned on private and public property, apply that here.

If a guy breaks into your home and you want to turn him into Swiss cheese, go for it.
I'm not sure how this is supposed to make sense. I don't care what dumb rules someone puts in place on property I don't in part pay for so don't worry about the rules on property that I do have to pay for?

Quote:
Read carefully. Federal guidelines disqualified his psycho ass, state guidelines for reporting did not. The "announcement" is CYA, not that I'd feel any better with Cho falling through the cracks versus actually getting rubber-stamped due to a loophole in the system.
This was supposed to be your example of how people that shouldn't own guns or have permits have not already disqualified themselves from ownership several times already. Cho failed to meet the legal requirements, how does that prove people don't usually show themselves to be violent or nuts well in advance?

Quote:
The chain of command goes something like trustees -> board -> chancellor -> deans -> faculty, with the alumni association's money thrown in the mix. As a tuition-paying student, you're a customer. There are tens of thousands just like you.

I want you to have the option of attending Yosemite Sam's Rootin' Tootin' Hand Cannon University.
You don't recnogize taxpayers and the corresponding state legislator as having decision making power on a state college's affairs? I think you're seriously underestimating their influence.

Quote:
That said, professors in technical fields sacrifice a lucrative career in the private sector to beg for grants and have no control over where they live into their mid-30's. Academia's fragile bubble of liberal ######ude is the only reason to stay in this meat grinder.

The thought of entire Womyn's Studies departments vanishing in protest makes me smile. Otherwise, be careful what you wish for.
I'm sorry if you don't like where your career has led you and the potential reprocussions of rule changes. I assure you that all of your coworkers do not feel the same way and you will be missed but are not so irreplaceable that you get to be the geometry diva and proclaim "its my way or I'm leaving!"

Quote:
Not sure how we got on this tangent, but if bringing a potato gun to class will shut you up, let's do it.
As I recall you seemed to think the idea of guns being simple devices easily made in any machine shop was outrageous.

Quote:
You take violent criminals with no morality as primary. I take people with goals who act to maximize their own utility within their means.
Doesn't everyone have the means to take advtage of people weaker than themselves already with it being relatively easy to gain an advantage over unarmed victims?

Quote:
Spree killers fit your definition, and in your definition crime is minimized by arming everyone.
I'm asserting nothing about minimizing crime, just that people can effectively fight back and should be given the chance to protect themselves through effective means.

Quote:
My definition can't handle murder-suicides; they're an exception to any concept of self-interest I understand. But it does explain the poor guy who turns into a thief / robber when you hand him a pistol. It's difficult to advocate gun ownership from this perspective:
Why is it logical to believe that someone is only good because they don't have a gun? You can still do evil, easily, to others without one. There are plenty of people that would be easy victims for thems to rob and steal from with no weapons at all, let alone if they used bats, knives, etc. For that matter why aren't you a rapist? You have the cock, you could easily overpower most women. Why not maximize that cock's utility within your means?

Quote:
Part of that pauper-cum-criminal's utility is not getting shot, and that's what we're debating.

Overall, we're a nation of guns and our crime rate sucks. But locally you can find every combination of no guns / lots of guns, high crime / low crime.

The interplay between citizen A's right to self-defense (with a gun) and his right not to be assraped by citizen B (with a gun) is complex. Note citizen A carrying a gun in no way precludes his being assraped by citizen B.

There isn't one answer. It only makes sense to decide at the community level.
I'm not sure that I believe most criminals truly fear getting shot to start with. They already know most potential victims will be unarmed, they know most people won't fight back, they know that in any state they might come across an off duty copy or person packing that could shoot back. It seems like the risk to them is minimal. The issue is letting a potential victim decide if they want to protect themselves or not.

What makes us a nation of guns any more than switzerland is a nation of guns? Again you're focusing on the most superficial part of gun crime. How many acts of gun crime involve someone who was already a felon? How many involve illegal drugs? How many involve 2 felons? If you want to take a serious look at crime and not just say "we're a nation of guns" lets see who are criminals are and examine why're criminals. I suspect most of them were criminals long before they picked up a gun.

Quote:
Okay. His attempt to parallel antebellum history with modern gun control is whiny and ludicrous.

"Even if they don't OVERTLY ADMIT being racist..." okay, Mr. Farrakhan. The brothers appreciate your Idaho Senate Republican ass looking out for 'em.
There's certainly plenty more out there if you care to read it. I found that journal article to be well cited and pretty good but don't stop reading.

Quote:
That was my point. Prohibitions do have a preventative effect -- maybe 1%, maybe 50%; it's perfectly quantifiable if we had a reliable means to collect the data. So no, it's crazy to say people break laws, therefore outlawing things doesn't work and we might as well give up.
Alright so by what mechanism do you propose that laws against weapons on campus will have a preventative effect on someone that intends on breaking a much more severe law? If the harsher penality of the more serious law isn't enough to have a preventative effect on their actions how does the lesser? If it doesn't don't we come to look at the punitive effects of a law? We can do society good by punishing the guy who causes harm to others, but what good do we do society by throwing me in jail for packing on campus?

Quote:
Overturning the status quo puts the burden of proof on you. I'm not why you feel like the university is your property, given that you sit behind a desk there 9-15 hours a week.
I'm not sure what proof it is you're asking you. I can show you conviction rates for permit holders vs the general public, permit recovation rates, etc. Are you just saying you haven't seen evidence that permit holders aren't dangerous yet? You asked me why I didn't want to force banks to allow concealed carry. Again, like or not, tax payers ultimately get a large say in the way a university is run.

Quote:
Oh okay. I'll just go mandate that the federal government collect and tabulate data states might not even ask their police jurisdictions to compile. Then I'll have a look. All so you can take your pet pistol to biology class then leave it in your car for eight hours because you can't bring it anywhere else.
You apparently think pistols are banned in many more places than they are. Anyway the data is certainly out there, many states have licensing departments that publish this type of data for review. I don't know that I mentioned it before but I was originally neutral to anti and decided to take up the research for myself and look for any unbiased source that might show concealed carry to be dangerous. You can see where that has led. Of course the simplest test would be that any shootings with a permit holder would be big news and you just don't even see that but I did dig deeper. I'd urge you to do the same to bolster your position.

Quote:
I asked what the hell you mean "everywhere" up above. It's unreasonable because you don't make this demand anywhere else.
Replied above

Quote:
The decision's been made, and it wasn't mine. I'm trying to explain it to you. Public safety is hardly an issue of free speech or privacy. If you believed in this crusade past the warm fuzzy feeling protesting gives you, you'd carry your gun "don't ask, don't tell" and deal with the fallout after you became a hero.
Is your arugment so weak that you have to come back to the "hero" stuff again? Lets just jump straight to the blood in the streets and shoot outs over parking spaces. Obviously there is a great deal of debate over what sort of influence "public safety concerns" can have over firearms in regards to law. By your logic shouldnt public safety concerns also be able to trump free speech or privacy?

Quote:
They don't own the university any more than you or I own the DMV, post office, or police department.
Own and having a say in are different matters, lets not play stupid.

Quote:
I would ask Nancy, but Nancy can't keep track of her cell phone for six months. The responsible, self-aware personality of our ideal CCW holder makes her a poor mark and unlikely to be targeted in the first place.

Full disclosure, my experience with guns and college is rednecks unloading buckshot in the parking lot during keg parties.

Another of my wild fairy tales is that the number of accidents / losses from increased gun density among the young, wild, sex-crazed alcoholics at my university is at least as large as the number of times Nancy's robber-rapist gives her the opportunity to draw.
Again more speculation and imagination. Show me where nancy the ninny or drunk billy are dangers where carry is allowed on campus or any of the other places they can carry.

Quote:
Do we have a list of these?
Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia all have no prohibition on concealed carry on college campus. Utah's law forbid any school rules against it, in other states colleges are allowed to make their own rules.

Speaking of those rules, in 2006 there was legislation introduced in Virginia that would have forbid VA colleges from prohibiting people with carry licenses from carrying on campus. The bill was defeated and the following comments were offered:
Quote:
Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
And a great deal safer VT was made by keeping those dangerous permit holders from having weapons on campus.

Quote:
I would think the exceptional traits that make CCW holders model citizens reflect the effort it takes to get the permit. Tell me if "gun ownership advocate" is a misnomer, but the more people carry guns, the more average and sub-average shitheads are carrying guns.
The more I read of your posts the more I think you've formed a very strong opinion with little research. In two states you can carry any gun you legally own. Many states have no requirements other than to send in a 1 page application with your name some "no i'm not a felon" questions answered and you get your permit. Many states have no requirements for training, fingerprinting, classes, or whatever else you might have imagined there is. There is no evidence that I've seen that shows people from the states with very low effort permits are unsafe or dangerous. I don't think your theory holds water. Again I think its just more likely that shit heads are shit heads most of their lives and have probably done shithead things long before they apply for a permit or try to get a gun.

Quote:
You aren't. It's not yours.
Discussed above.

Quote:
Your friend might be a helpless rape victim precisely because the number of armed men around her increased tenfold, all thanks to your irrational fear your guns will someday be outlawed if you don't constantly push to expand your rights.
You're falling off the logical thought boat. A 220 pound man needs a gun to rape a 110 pound woman? A guy that is comfortable breaking rape laws wouldn't break the law and carry a concealed gun? These seem like pretty out there claims, I'll let the readers decide here.

Quote:
Remember kids, statistics say you get raped by someone you know, and statistics say women don't buy guns.
Robbed, attacked by ostriches, I don't really care what the odds are. Like I've said several times concealed carry isn't about the odds, its about whats at stake. Currently she has to risk both her academic career and a criminal record if she wants to be able to protect herself on campus. How is that justified knowing both that she is no danger with her gun and the bad guys break the law anyway because theyre bad guys.

Quote:
My position, as I hope I've made clear, is that the gun lobby needs to step off my fucking nuts with the post-Cho damage control. It's fucking adorable you "don't feel safe" in a crowded area from 1:00 to 2:15 twice a week.
Alright so are you cool with people that work late, walk to campus through bad areas, or women that are tired of hoping a blue call box will save them asking for it?

Quote:
I don't tell your work what to do because I shop there,
Thats your choice, I'm pretty vocal about places I give my money to. I will tell a shitty restaurant to fix their service, a grocery store full of expired food to check their stock, etc. In most regards the person paying the bills influences the busines.

Quote:
and your work isn't filled with people who just discovered they can drink legally and have sex without their parents finding out.
Who hasn't already discovered that in high school. Again we're back to the same old unjustified hysteria and supposition though. Omg they're crrraaaazy! The reality is people carry on college campuses in some states already. The reality is college age people in states that disallow concealed carry on campus can probably carry most other places they go. You're afraid of people that you can't demonstrate to be the slightest bit dangerous. Its like fearing baby bunnies. I guess they might have razor sharp fangs and murder people when they turn their heads but until I see some proof of it I think I'll just go with the mountain of statistics that show them to be perfectly safe. If you're going to keep insisting that these people are unsafe or dangerous and that we should ignore the data we already have on concealed carry, I'd like to see some justification. Essentially all I've gotten from you so far is "well I work there and don't like it" and thats not making much of an argument for your case.

Quote:
Usually it's someone with jumper cables or a tow hitch.
Cute. Not relevalant and you're not making your point to anyone reading this, but cute. You implied that more guns automatically means increased danger but of course thats unsupported irrational fear of those bad guns again.

Quote:
I've read that here. Where's the biggest one?
Could we start by just saying all public college/university/community college students in the state of Utah? That seems rather signficant and should provide a easy means for checking any state data.
__________________
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." - Related in someway to Voltaire probably.
Only the educated are free. --Epictetus

Last edited by Soybomb; 04-26-2008 at 09:12 PM..
Old 04-26-2008, 09:02 PM Soybomb is offline  
Reply With Quote
#215  

Mr. Greg
I'm obsessed with DHermit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by möbiustrip View Post
You're not the first conservative I've disappointed by being reasonable.

I have yet to meet many like you, though. One of the few liberals I really think has his a brain left in their head is Russ Feingold, as he and I see eye to eye on a lot of things, especially many firearm laws.

Quote:
It's not any of your business what I do for a living, nor is it relevant.
Then quit pretending you're a holier-than-thou teacher whose "vote" counts "more than" mine. You look stupid.

Quote:
Most press is overly exaggerated, period. You know this.

I am telling you the flak DC catches (from the gun lobby) for having crime and a gun ban is statistically totally illegitimate. Do you believe me?
Blown out of proportion? Sure. "Totally illegitimate?" Absolutely not. Citizens are denied the right to defend themselves both in their homes (disassembled and unloaded while in storage), and in public; how many crimes could be prevented with law-abiding citizens having the ability to defend themselves? Until the b.ullshit gun ban is repealed, the answer can never be clear, nor assumed.

Quote:
Okay, cool. Many people on your side of the fence do claim CCW prevents crime.
You're not the first liberal I've disappointed by being reasonable.

Quote:
Do you claim conversely that gun bans encourage crime? That seems central to the "unarmed schools are an easy target" argument.
Encourage wouldn't be the right word...more like "permit unhindered." It gives criminals the peace of mind that, unless someone is breaking the law like they are/will, and there doesn't happen to be law enforcement/security in the area, they're free from repercussion for enough time to commit whatever crime they choose, because by the time there is a police/security response, the deed is done. I firmly believe that throwing the variable of "anyone could be armed here" to replace the "only people who break the law, and will probably not get caught" variable will make criminals think twice before doing something stupid. Like I said, there will always be those who are so fucked up that they don't care, but I don't thing any school shooter would feel as unhindered if there would be the chance of an instant opposition the instant after their crime would be committed.

Quote:
I bring up DC because within the single variable we can isolate from the FBI's data -- popluation -- DC falsifies that thesis.
Explain.

Quote:
You could argue that a gun-free zone in a gun-filled city is not necessarily comparable to DC, and I would agree. In that case, why are universities special among gun-free zones, e.g. shopping malls, theme parks, some stadium events?
A typical college classroom/lecture hall has ingress/egress points on one side of the hall, giving the shooter complete control of the escape routes if they choose to attack from that way, like Cho did. In NIU's case, he attacked from the front, and the exits were in the back, yet he had a clear shot at everyone because of the stadium seating.

Shopping malls are a lot more open, yet are still private property, which is why I can not like their banning of CCW, but accept it.

Quote:
Okay, as long as I get to follow you telling them legal gun owners like Cho should be encouraged to legally bring them to class.
Not true.

Quote:
He was successful at completing both handgun purchases, even though he had failed to disclose information on the background questionnaire about his mental health that required court-ordered outpatient treatment at a mental health facility.
Quote:
As for the court, Virginia law also mandated that, if a person fails to comply with a court order to seek mental health treatment as an outpatient, that person can be brought back before the court "and if found still in crisis, can be committed to a psychiatric institution for up to 180 days." Cho was never summoned to court to explain why he had not complied with the December 14, 2005 order for mandatory mental health treatment as an outpatient.
He lied on the forms, and slipped through the cracks of the NICS check because of Virginia's incompetent laws. He was not a legal firearm owner. I know VA's requirements differ from that of the federal government's, but seeing as he lied on a federal NICS form, which was unable to be verified since VA did not report the judge's ruling on his mental incompetence, he's just as much a legal owner of a firearm as someone who claims they're a legal owner of something that a retail store forgets to scan, but leave the store with it anyways. But yes, as long as you take out the false bit about Cho, feel free to tell them that.


Quote:
opponents of guns on campus argue that their presence would dramatically increase violence in a variety of ways – from accidental discharges to fights being settled with bullets instead of fists. On their side are most university presidents and many law-enforcement officials, as well as academic research.
I see neither of those at the schools which have allowed CCW already. They're assuming worst-case scenarios that are only hypothetical are indeed fact.

Quote:
"The best science that we have says concealed carry laws do not save lives, as the proponents contend," says Jon Vernick, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore.


You mean their nitpicking of John Lott's studies is passed off as "science"? Sounds more like this kind of "science" to me.

Quote:
That conclusion, while controversial among gun advocates, was recently endorsed by the American Academy of Sciences


...Which had a dissenter (James Q. Wilson) who admitted that the committee's own findings echoed Lott's sentiments that RTC laws decreased murder rates.

Quote:
...because you're using the murders as a vehicle to defy a private institution's ability to self-regulate on the grounds that (1) it's taxpayer-subsidized (2) those policies override your property rights in a way you find perfectly acceptable in every analogous case in the nominally "private" sector.
Uhh...yes?

I think companies/shopping malls/air transportation owners have the right to say "no firearms," but public colleges don't, as they receive subsidies from the federal government, and are thus "public."

Quote:
I don't like fear politics. Leave the terrifying graphic imagery to the Brady Bunch.
I hope you're referring to the same Brady's that popped into my mind when I read that.

Quote:
But if you're willing to compromise, "CCW but no guns in dorms, sporting events" (article, page 2) is a reasonable place to start.
ABSOLUTELY!

I'm convinced you're not hopeless now. That exact idea is what we're going to try for here at UND. This campus is unique in that the police station offers students the privilege of storing their firearms at the police station (in a moist closet, allowing police offers to play with them when they please [true story], but that's a different topic altogether). I do not see much of a problem with allowing CCW in all of the campus buildings besides the residence halls and apartments, and just let students who live on campus pick up their firearms at the beginning of the day, then drop them off at the end. Sure, the students are defenseless when going to/from the police station, yet the CCW law is still active, which at least provides somewhat of a deterrence, as there could still be people carrying for every person not. The problem at UND is that the police station is on a far end of the campus, a good 10-15 minute walk from the majority of residence halls. If they set up a small pickup/dropoff storage center in the union, smack dab in the middle of campus, the problem would be solved.

Stadiums, as you mentioned earlier, both school and otherwise, use metal detectors and searches (or should do searches) on people who enter, which is something not present on the ent.rances to lecture halls/in the middle of the quad.

I think this is a very reasonable compromise between pros and antis. It allows students who live both on and off campus to carry, and alleviates the "Dorms are not a place for guns" argument. Still, it's going to be an uphill battle to convince people how viable this is, especially our chief of police, who implied in an article in our school paper today that his officers, unlike thousands of others in the country, operate on a "Shoot people with guns first, tell them to put them down later" policy.


Quote:
The thing is, 11 schools where CCW works says nothing general. What works in New York may not work in Kansas, and vice versa. Making this a constitutional issue via "PUBLIC! university" overrides local self-determination with a one-size-fits-all federal edict. That short-circuits a sound conservative principle. [Note, I don't apply this reasoning to every political issue.]
How large does the number have to be to make it say something general? There would be some areas more prone to crime when firearms are present, sure, but it's the people that are the problem there, not the allowance of the firearms. Again, why would a criminal on the fringe of shooting someone wait for a law to justify the carrying of a firearm on campus, when he intends to break a law with a far worse consequence, instead of carrying illegally already? It's not a "federal" thing either, it's a state thing.

Quote:
So if it works for your area, campaign your ass off. Don't tread on me because of some weird brotherhood among gun owners.
I am campaigning my ass off in my area. I just have brothers and sisters in arms campaigning their asses off in their areas too, which may happen to be closer to you.

Quote:
I don't know what you're getting at, but no, I don't think an anomalous event involving guns justifies spinning the roulette wheel by encouraging more guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox_vaccine

Quote:
The quote was Basically my feeling, and I think I speak for a lot of people, is that any law which makes gun ownership normative does more harm than good, because assholes and idiots outnumber ethical, responsible people by a wide margin. Quit taking things out of context.
I didn't. I edited the soapbox and thought process parts of your sentence down to your central point, which was "Any law which makes gun ownership normative does more harm than good," which is terrible untrue, the Swiss being a prime example.

Quote:
We're not Swiss. Or Japanese, or Canadian. We can't import another country's gun policy (or health care system, or tax code) and expect to duplicate their statistics.

The article's final sentence is important. Small US towns basically don't have crime (but the rare incident sends their per-capita rate off the charts, further muddying the statewide average).
If you would of said that your point was region-based, I wouldn't of brought up the Swiss, but your statement was pretty all-inclusive.

Quote:
Don't be touchy.
Then don't assume that our group is the false promises equivalent of the 110th US Congress (Excluding my elected Senator Russ Feingold ).

Quote:
Thank you.
And you complain when I quote only part of what you have to say...

How is that an "unintended consequence," though? Do you believe it'll be a surprise when people are allowed to carry their weapons on campus where weapons were not allowed before, making the numbers go up? Are you saying that everyone who wants carry on campus is carrying illegally right now?

Quote:
Ignoring the probability they occur -- what regretful things can happen where guns are? Limit your brainstorming to externalities. The assumption concealed carry permit holders are perfect actors can be treated separately.
Anything that can go wrong, can go wrong. Just like any other activity with possible dangerous side effects. Concealed carry has proven to have a very small amount of those dangerous side effects though, which is why no CCW law has been declared unsafe and repealed.

Quote:
It gets your panties in a twist that I'm arguing inductively when, empirically, "nothing has gone wrong before." I hear you saying you left the house unlocked yesterday, and no one robbed you, therefore you have no reason to lock the house today.

Am I fearmongering to say that's thoughtless?
It would then be my fault if someone robbed my house, because then I would of been allowing it to happen by not taking the proper precautions. Would I be mad at the lock manufacturer for not producing a lock that didn't lock itself in the absence of my presence? Absolutely not. For that reason, people shouldn't be mad at anyone but themselves when something they could of prevented happens to them, nor blame the tools that the perpetrator used.

Quote:
Now what if it's my house, and you're just visiting?
I'm just visiting...to rob it? Or should I be able to carry while inside it?

Quote:
I didn't use the words "flood" or "exponentially," quit being sensational.

I am saying campus carry means more firearms, a point you just conceded with "of course" and a tard smiley.
Because it's not an "unintended consequence," it's an obvious one.

Quote:
You got me. Does that kind of thing score points in W[M]D?
No, because we don't say pompous shit like "my vote counts more than yours."
__________________
Moose's brother.

Louis Potgieter (1951-1996) NEVER FORGET

Last edited by Mr. Greg; 04-27-2008 at 12:43 AM..
Old 04-27-2008, 12:20 AM Mr. Greg is offline  
Reply With Quote
#216  

:ninja:
My cooter sweats, and reeks like rotting sea vermon.
 
:ninja:'s Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by red|dragon View Post
If everyone is mature and responsible enough to carry a weapon and protect others when necessary, how come very one isn't mature enough and responsible enough to say no to violence in the first place? Then we wouldn't need everyone to have a gun (I love guns, just don't think we need everyone walking around like a texas ranger)

I want to say this every time I see one of your posts, whether it's in the BC or A[M]. Now that we're in the Pit, I can:

You're a fucking moron. You're easily up there with Lurker and xLudax as the dumbest fucking idiots on genmay.
__________________
Use Linux and BSD
Old 04-27-2008, 02:58 PM :ninja: is offline  
Reply With Quote
#217  

möbiustrip
 
möbiustrip's Avatar
 
Quote:
Citizens are denied the right to defend themselves both in their homes (disassembled and unloaded while in storage), and in public; how many crimes could be prevented with law-abiding citizens having the ability to defend themselves? Until the b.ullshit gun ban is repealed, the answer can never be clear, nor assumed.
Home defense is necessary and inalienable. Moreover it's consistent with our courts' guideline that "the buck stops at your front door" unless there is a damned good reason. Maybe a commune of Quakers is justified blanket-banning guns. I don't think a state has that right.

Guns out of the home have more gray area between where your fist ends and my nose begins.

Quote:
It gives criminals the peace of mind that...they're free from repercussion...I firmly believe that throwing the variable of "anyone could be armed here" ... will make criminals think twice before doing something stupid...Explain.
I agree that's intuitive, but the statistics just don't bear it out. An explanation is that criminals don't choose their marks randomly in the first place: you rob the little old lady, not Mike Tyson.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=SABP04JD

Resort the list any way you like. It's currently "violent crime," thought the column labelled "all crime" is most relevant to the deterrent effect of gun ownership / CCW (takes into account home invasion etc.).

This is the same FBI data statemaster uses, I just snipped the organization by state, picked an arbitrary population floor, and made Excel crunch some numbers.

The "top ten list" that treats DC on equal footing with state averages is lies, damned lies.

It is not honest to say "DC has twice as much murder as South Carolina, when you average over every police department in South Carolina."

It is honest to say DC has as much violent crime, within one sigma, as a hundred other cities, and it still isn't in the "top 50" -- again, a numerically meaningless cutoff -- nationwide.

Conclusion: the gun ban has not led to unusual crime levels.

Quote:
Shopping malls are a lot more open, yet are still private property, which is why I can not like their banning of CCW, but accept it.
What about hospitals, USPS, etc etc etc? The "private property" technicality just doesn't hold water.

Quote:
Not true...he slipped through the cracks of the NICS check because of Virginia's incompetent laws.
Not untrue. Soybomb's NYT article:

"the form that Virginia courts use to notify state police...addresses only the state criteria...: someone who was “involuntarily committed”...[Cho was] ordered to undergo outpatient treatment, which would not qualify as an involuntary commitment under Virginia law, Mr. Bonnie [director of the University of Virginia Institute on Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy] said."

I don't give a damn NYT found a UF law prof who disagrees on the semantics; a consult with outpatient treatment != "involuntary committed" to a mental health facility. It's in the Cho wiki, too.

And [c]urrently, only 22 states submit any mental health records to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

This was not one guy checking the wrong box by accident ("a crack"), this was a loophole wide enough to drive a truck through. The media and various officials scrambled to spin it as human error rather than policy SNAFU. It is clearly the latter, which is why we're quietly writing the loophole-closure bill referenced in the article.

The system failed, without breaking any of its own rules. Blame the state of Virginia if you want, but unless you want to jail the guy who sold him the guns, don't call it illegal.

Quote:
I think companies/shopping malls/air transportation owners have the right to say "no firearms," but public colleges don't, as they receive subsidies from the federal government, and are thus "public."
One of you asked for specific examples. Cable company. Phone company. Airline bail-out. Investment bail-out. And literally every government building you visit.

Quote:
I hope you're referring to the same Brady's that popped into my mind when I read that.
He was bringing up three very lovely girls, then someone took a shot -- at the Gipper! -- now he gets around in a chair with wheels!

Quote:
ABSOLUTELY!
That's all I'm saying. The student body deserves a voice. The faculty, who are ultimately affected most, and higher-ups (whose asses are on the line should a lawsuit occur) already have a process to negotiate with student government. It's not a democracy -- they'd vote themselves all A's and free ice cream -- but they do have a voice.

The foaming-at-the-mouth taxpayer who doesn't have a dog in this fight? I don't give a fuck what he thinks; he can push his agenda any of a hundred public and private businesses, and leave a place he never goes -- campus -- alone. I won't be strongarmed by a vocal lobby that wants to use the second amendment to short-circuit due process in every public university in the country in one fell swoop.

Quote:
Still, it's going to be an uphill battle to convince people how viable this is, especially our chief of police, who implied in an article in our school paper today that his officers, unlike thousands of others in the country, operate on a "Shoot people with guns first, tell them to put them down later" policy.
Meh. I could be wrong, but on teevee you don't get a second chance once shots have been fired. The police chief's not your enemy.

Quote:
How large does the number have to be to make it say something general?
Without an unbiased sample of adequate size (and I don't know what that is, in this case), you can't even begin to try to make meaningful statements.

We know very little "general" about the variables that produce crime. We have a lot of misleading anecdotes, a lot of hard data interpreted wrong, and a smattering of correlations compiled by people who want a certain answer and argue with each other ad nauseam.

Quote:
Again, why would a criminal on the fringe of shooting someone wait for a law to justify the carrying of a firearm on campus, when he intends to break a law with a far worse consequence, instead of carrying illegally already?
Maybe it's a crime of opportunity, not premeditation. I would think robberies happen this way more often than not; it's not like Lil' Deebo bought his glock because it was on the business plan under "ATM camping."

Funny. Now look at the crime spreadsheet.

Quote:
your central point, which was "Any law which makes gun ownership normative does more harm than good," which is terrible untrue, the Swiss being a prime example.
I admit it's an opinion I can't prove. So is yours, of course.

I'm not an expert on Swiss gun ownership, but what I've heard -- bullet control, small towns -- seems reasonably crucial. In any event my article said a quarter of their households have guns, versus half of ours. It doesn't make a difference, as there's no more hard data for that correlation than saying if we all smoked like Japan we'd have cool technology like Japan.

Quote:
Are you saying that everyone who wants carry on campus is carrying illegally right now?
I'm saying there's an awful lot of noise over stopping a Cho, when there are a million day-to-day scenarios that deserve sober consideration.

Quote:
For that reason, people shouldn't be mad at anyone but themselves when something they could of prevented happens to them, nor blame the tools that the perpetrator used.
If I weren't giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're still in the door analogy, and not blaming shooting victims, I would rip you a new asshole for that quip.
__________________
I personally believe that there has to be a law that limits the power of the supreme court. -- R@$T@M@N
Old 04-27-2008, 04:30 PM möbiustrip is offline  
Reply With Quote
#218  

Xayd
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by möbiustrip View Post
Read carefully. Federal guidelines disqualified his psycho ass, state guidelines for reporting did not. The "announcement" is CYA, not that I'd feel any better with Cho falling through the cracks versus actually getting rubber-stamped due to a loophole in the system.

yet he will cry for "state's rights" because he's duped into believing in it by republican politicians despite obvious examples of state failure that disprove his own shaky points, and being an 18-22 year old, simply doesn't know any better. like i've said many times before that describes the vast majority of this forum. it's pretty pointless to argue reality with someone who doesn't know what it is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by möbiustrip View Post
Remember kids, statistics say you get raped by someone you know, and statistics say women don't buy guns.

clearly those statistics don't mean as much as 0.05% of community colleges in buttfuck, utah allowing people to walk around with cowboy hats and overcoats with deer rifles stashed in them .
Old 04-27-2008, 04:49 PM Xayd is offline  
Reply With Quote
#219  

möbiustrip
 
möbiustrip's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soybomb View Post
...I don't see what the point would be. We can't keep weapons out of jail and what good does a guy at a metal detector do to stop anyone who plans to kill people?
I hope you have a gun handy, because I'm gonna start strangling people who use this "RULES DON'T STOP ANYONE DETERMINED SO WHAT'S THE POINT" line of argument.

Quote:
Terms like corporate welfare and broad and sweeping, if you want to talk about a specific example bring it up, cite the money in question, and we'll talk about it. Until then...
What? No. You can't just dismiss every company that gets tax money and repeat yourself.

http://www.porkbusters.org

Quote:
Pick any of those places and I can probably name several states where carrying in those place is legal. Do you think there aren't states where people carry in bars, clubs, hospitals, schools and banks?
They don't in my area, and that's for my area to decide. Not the Supreme Court.

Quote:
I'm not sure how this is supposed to make sense. I don't care what dumb rules someone puts in place on property I don't in part pay for
But your taxes do help pay for lots of property with dumb rules. Who's the friggin' liberal, here?

Quote:
I'm sorry if you don't like where your career has led you and the potential reprocussions of rule changes. I assure you that all of your coworkers do not feel the same way and you will be missed but are not so irreplaceable that you get to be the geometry diva and proclaim "its my way or I'm leaving!"
Most of them do feel the same way. If I never have to hear about academia's liberal bias from you college Republican people again, you can assure me of anything you want.

Incidentally, it's "repercussions," and you misread me completely by parsing that as a personal threat. I'm telling you what I've seen for ten years, don't believe it if you don't want to.

Quote:
Doesn't everyone have the means to take advtage of people weaker than themselves already with it being relatively easy to gain an advantage over unarmed victims?
Not sure quite what you mean, but the first one to draw a gun with intent to fire wins every argument. Any other display of force leaves room for discussion.

Quote:
Why is it logical to believe that someone is only good because they don't have a gun?
Logical isn't the right word. To maintain that people have black-and-white morality divorced from opportunity is to ignore reality at your own peril.

Quote:
You can still do evil, easily, to others without one. There are plenty of people that would be easy victims for thems to rob and steal from with no weapons at all, let alone if they used bats, knives, etc.
Less easily. Criminals don't rob people with ballpoint pens and plastic forks. The gun helps.

Quote:
Alright so by what mechanism do you propose that laws against weapons on campus will have a preventative effect on someone that intends on breaking a much more severe law?
Again, you can view any combination of no guns / lots of guns, low crime / high crime as anecdotal "demonstration" of a preventative / detrimental correlation. I believe citywide data scales down to suggest there is no such correlation, and it's up to the locals to decide.

As to acquiring a gun legally "with intent to do worse," a firearm is power. Acquiring power, I think, precedes a decision to use power for corrupt ends.

Quote:
We can do society good by punishing the guy who causes harm to others, but what good do we do society by throwing me in jail for packing on campus?
Has this happened?

Quote:
Are you just saying you haven't seen evidence that permit holders aren't dangerous yet?
On the contrary, I've said I admire permit holders repeatedly. I've also I don't believe a PR campaign that encourages people who haven't sought out permits to obtain them is a good idea.

Quote:
By your logic shouldnt public safety concerns also be able to trump free speech or privacy?
They do: see "bomb in airport."

Quote:
And a great deal safer VT was made by keeping those dangerous permit holders from having weapons on campus.
At least I don't talk like Yoda.

Be glad VT can decide for itself. The pendulum swings both ways.

Quote:
You're falling off the logical thought boat. A 220 pound man needs a gun to rape a 110 pound woman?
220's not average, but speaking from extensive personal experience, the gun helps with all the squirming and kicking.

Do you dispute my premise that the number of armed men increases tenfold? Or my assertion most rapes are committed by perps familiar to the victim? Her odds were better with Oogey Boogey in the bushes.

Quote:
How is that justified knowing both that she is no danger with her gun
As in any other sphere of public interaction, whether he is a danger with his gun is not his decision.  see what I did with the gender there? 

Quote:
Alright so are you cool with people that work late, walk to campus through bad areas, or women that are tired of hoping a blue call box will save them asking for it?
You aren't the Emperor of Women.

Quote:
Thats your choice, I'm pretty vocal about places I give my money to. I will tell a shitty restaurant to fix their service, a grocery store full of expired food to check their stock, etc.
And they, in turn, can decide you're a cocksucker.

Quote:
Could we start by just saying all public college/university/community college students in the state of Utah?
They drink 3.2 beer, for Christ's sake.



But seriously. No, we can't start by just saying that.

The University of Utah, based in Salt Lake City, had prohibited firearms on its campus until that ban was struck down by the state's Supreme Court in late 2006. The institution, backed by all other universities in the state, is still fighting through federal courts to reinstate the ban.
__________________
I personally believe that there has to be a law that limits the power of the supreme court. -- R@$T@M@N
Old 04-27-2008, 05:48 PM möbiustrip is offline  
Reply With Quote
#220  

Soybomb
 
I notice the selective quotations and "omg spalling mistake!!!" have started so I'm going to abandon the string of replies and try to get back to the core of the matter here for the sake of my own free time. I see no benefit in arguing that most men don't need any weapons to toss around most women or any of the things we've been going around about. I'll go back into it if anyone really wants but it seems like a waste of time.

Quote:
The University of Utah, based in Salt Lake City, had prohibited firearms on its campus until that ban was struck down by the state's Supreme Court in late 2006. The institution, backed by all other universities in the state, is still fighting through federal courts to reinstate the ban.
And what of the other colleges and community colleges in the state? What of the data from late 2006 to now? What of the other states that allow it? What of the states where those students carry everywhere else they go? Is there any evidence that supports your fear of people with concealed carry licences in any circumstance on or off campus since data is available for both? If not it all boils to to unjustified fear of events that can be shown not to come true. Is there anything that you could see that would put your fears at ease or will you always think what you fear will play out even if the all the evidence points to the contrary?

Quote:
you college Republican people again
Guns don't necessarily mean republican.
__________________
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." - Related in someway to Voltaire probably.
Only the educated are free. --Epictetus

Last edited by Soybomb; 04-27-2008 at 06:36 PM..
Old 04-27-2008, 06:31 PM Soybomb is offline  
Reply With Quote
#221  

möbiustrip
 
möbiustrip's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soybomb View Post
I notice the selective quotations and "omg spalling mistake!!!" have started so I'm going to abandon the string of replies and try to get back to the core of the matter here for the sake of my own free time.
Fair enough. You earned the typo smack for getting personal.

Quote:
What of the data from late 2006 to now?
What of it? What do you claim it suggests we do, as a country?

Quote:
Is there anything that you could see that would put your fears at ease or will you always think what you fear will play out even if the all the evidence points to the contrary?
You're making this too complicated. A place has a no-gun policy. You can choose to comply with it, defy it, or not go there. You keep playing the fear card when only one of us is hollering RAPE and SPREE KILLERS to get his way.

I think you need a damned good reason to have the federal government force a place to overturn its security policy. That gunless people are victims is proven false by DC. That your property rights trump theirs is proven false by every gun ban you don't bitch about.
__________________
I personally believe that there has to be a law that limits the power of the supreme court. -- R@$T@M@N

Last edited by möbiustrip; 04-27-2008 at 07:50 PM..
Old 04-27-2008, 07:47 PM möbiustrip is offline  
Reply With Quote
#222  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by möbiustrip View Post
Fair enough. You earned the typo smack for getting personal.

What of it? What do you claim it suggests we do, as a country?

You're making this too complicated. A place has a no-gun policy. You can choose to comply with it, defy it, or not go there. You keep playing the fear card when only one of us is hollering RAPE and SPREE KILLERS to get his way.

I think you need a damned good reason to have the federal government force a place to overturn its security policy. That gunless people are victims is proven false by DC. That your property rights trump theirs is proven false by every gun ban you don't bitch about.

You make this oversimplified

A place has a no s or women policy. You cn choose to comply with it, defy it, or not go there

Oh Wait. Denying someone a constutitionaly protected right is not legal.
__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323
Old 04-27-2008, 07:53 PM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#223  

möbiustrip
 
möbiustrip's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMorlock View Post
You make this oversimplified

A place has a no s or women policy. You cn choose to comply with it, defy it, or not go there

Oh Wait. Denying someone a constutitionaly protected right is not legal.
If your interpretation is correct, requiring permits to own / carry a gun in the first place is illegal. It's a right which shall not be infringed, not a privilege. Yeah?

So our law re: front-load muskets under threat of British invasion, and its relationship to the silenced 50-caliber with grenade launcher in modern urban society, is basically the same thing as slavery.

Good work.
__________________
I personally believe that there has to be a law that limits the power of the supreme court. -- R@$T@M@N
Old 04-27-2008, 08:17 PM möbiustrip is offline  
Reply With Quote
#224  

Narcosynthesis
 
Didn't read through everything, but I keep seeing stuff about CCL holders and drinking.

The very fact that you HAVE a CCL marks you as being a bit above the norm as being a law abiding citizen.

AND, at least in OK, your license is immediately suspended for investigation if you're caught carrying while intoxicated or with the weapon in a car with you (even in a proper transportation bag/box) while you're intoxicated. Guy at our CCL class said that they'll basically nail you even if you're under the legal limit, if you've been drinking and get stopped with your carry weapon, you're basically fucked. Which works fine for me, drinking + guns = no.
__________________
Nevermore - Narcosynthesis

Alienate me, learn to hate me, Crucify your ideals the flesh is the swine, We are the last ones and we are bleeding for an unseen god.
Old 04-27-2008, 08:24 PM Narcosynthesis is offline  
Reply With Quote
#225  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:18 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.