|
[QUOTE=bohdi;1602976]Drolfille - My response to yours in bold.
Quote:
The gunman in Colorado springs was shot by a security guard. Yes it was her personal weapon, but it was also her JOB. Despite the fact that conceal-carry appears to be legal there, there's no evidence that arming your average citizen deterred anything. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It's my job to stay alive and to help others stay alive if possible. Quote:
Also, even if I were 100% skilled enough to do so, I do NOT believe that this random chance outweighs the dislike I have for everyone else around me to be carrying a weapon. Quote:
Quote:
The vast majority of college students on campus are 18-22. Special cases do not make the rule. This is not a stereotype, it is a fact. Same with the brain development. It's a fact. So yes, a minority of college students are "non-traditional" and a minority of those are ex-military and have specific firearms experience. This is rather irrellevant to the fact that I do not want the average college student carrying a weapon. Quote:
|
Drolfille, my apologies for not engaging in the predetermined protocols to introduce myself to the forum. I'll have to go back and rectify that, but you missed the point. I get yours. Your not comfortable with people being armed around you period.
The quote button was not my friend 100% of the time, which is why I posted the way I did in this case. Besides, that makes reading a bit more tedious for others. "Being a person holding a gun was her responsibility." Eh, you make it sound like she got her experience/responsibility because she volunteered. I'm not silly enough to think (nor did I state or imply) that if I stood to shoot at an armed gunperson (especially if they were still in FRONT of me) they wouldn't look at me and not try and take me out. They have already determined that I am among their group of victims - If I am faced with the choice of A) getting shot at while trying to run away (50% chance) or B) getting shot at while shooting at the gunman (50%), I'll take B. Regardless you do not have to stand to take a shot at someone. That's why people are taught to shoot prone (on their bellies) and in a kneeling position. If one were to crouch and lower their profile - which many did in this case, that affords you *some* albiet not great cover to conceal your intent. Be it running or pulling a weapon. I disagree with your position. I'd say the chance of someone bursting into a classroom and firing on students is increasing by the day. Criminals and whackos are oppourtunists, they take the path of least resistence. Why do you think you don't hear about many places people are actually armed are attacked outside of war zones? This knucklehead still carried out his attack because he knew the police weren't actually sitting in the class room. He knew the odds were in his favor, being a prior student. He knew all the students were unarmed and he'd meet no resistence. Why do you think people attack malls? Same reasons. Why do you think people attack churches? Same reasons. I don't know about 1 in a million, but with those odds you better start playing the lottery. "Staying alive is running, hiding, finding cover." - That didn't help everyone. The only thing that made this less worse is the gunman taking himself out early because he didn't want to face the consequences. "No. I wouldn't be armed either. The random chance that I would be in a classroom on a campus with a shooter, or any other similar situation (suicide by homicide essentially) is not high enough that I would carry, even if I were the best most controlled handler of a weapon in the country. I do believe this applies to everyone else around me as well, especially since none of them are the best, most controlled firearms experts either." So by your thinking if I tried to punch you in the face, you'd let me. That's basically what your saying here, it's the same thing. If it is that's fine, I just want to clarify. "The vast majority of college students on campus are 18-22. Special cases do not make the rule. This is not a stereotype, it is a fact. Same with the brain development. It's a fact. So yes, a minority of college students are "non-traditional" and a minority of those are ex-military and have specific firearms experience. This is rather irrellevant to the fact that I do not want the average college student carrying a weapon." Glad to see your willing to allow the non-traditional and minority students to carry, a compromise then :D We agree. I didn't mean to say I trusted the Police, lol. Nice catch, but if you read the rest of what I wrote, I clearly don't hold the position that Police are very accurate, any more so than an every day citizen with a permit and weapon would be. What I said is that they missed quite a bit and that's been documented. If the Police stand as good of a chance missing a shooter as well as a regular citizen who practices and carries, I'd still rather have a citizen being in that room trying to shoot back and potentially missing. That risk exists either way and is not exclusive to private citizens carrying weapons. |
Quote:
I meant unchallenged, I just have an annoying habit of not being able to use the same term repeatedly in an ongoing conversation. I want to get back into this discussion, but other dueling posters have taken over after your post. Damn, these are long posts, too. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So, anyone who shoots a gun is, on average, highly inaccurate. The police, trained in how to enter and handle a situation where a gunman is in a building with civilians, can control their numbers and their method. The average armed civilian has no training nor control over the police or other civilians. If they're all highly inaccurate, I'd rather have the police handle it thank you. Why add another gun firing into the mix? Or two guns? Or a 300 person lecture hall full of them? Maybe it's just that I don't live in fear of people walking into my classroom and shooting me. I don't feel a need to carry a weapon around wherever I go. And sorry shinerbock, too much practice on line by line quoting on my part. |
Quote:
I'm not sure it was your intent, but a lot of people attempt to disparage gun owners or those who wish to extend their right to carry by labeling them as paranoid. If it is to be categorized as "fear," I don't think carrying a weapon is in any way irrational. Some people carry pepper spray or take self-defense classes. Others carry firearms and get training to accompany that. Seems reasonable to me. |
Quote:
That said, a weapon is an offensive solution, not a defensive one. It is active, not passive since no one's going to be wearing hip holsters and making everyone aware of how armed they are. Seat-belts are defensive, weapons are offensive. And guns are lethal ones on top of that. Not really suggesting this as a solution, but tossing it out there: what about bean-bag guns. How would Joe Firearm feel about "non-lethal" alternatives? (I acknowledge that such things can in certain circumstances kill but are generally non-lethal) |
From Theta Mu Chapter ur in our thoughts and prayers? Does anyone know the status of the others who got wounded?!?!
S.K.L.A.M Sigma Kappa- Theta Mu Chapter at UNCC Audra Hathaway Historian Chair |
Quote:
I certainly don't think either side is above using the fear factor. I think my side (for concealed campus in most places) can make legitimate points without playing on people's fears. On the other side, I think the anti-gun crowd bases much of their platform on scaring citizens. Painting the average carrier of a concealed weapon as a wildly shooting maverick is the same thing. These generally aren't people who go purchase a weapon and simply start carrying it around. Many are very capable of operating their weapon in all situations, and just about every time I go to the range I see civilian shooters putting together groups that would make seasoned cops envious. Now, this is simply anecdotal, but I'm explaining where my position grows from. I think the idea that more people would die as a result of concealed carry on campus ignores the abilities of those who carry, in addition to the more important skill many of them possess: years of training/contemplation/experience resulting in the good judgment to know when to risk shooting and when to stay concealed. Weapons are both offensive and defensive solutions. This depends on definition of course, but the use of the weapon in a VT scenario would be in the defense of others and self. Perhaps this is a good spot for a trite statement like "the best defense is a good offense." Besides lethality, how are mace type solutions or certain "self-defense" maneuvers any less offensive? Non lethal solutions are fine. I think they're great tools. However, when someone is threatening me or my family (or friends or classmates) with deadly force, and especially when they've shown they're willing to act with the intent to kill, I don't want to mess around with less-effective forms of defense. You'll never see police use a tazer against someone shooting at them. The point is to stop the threat ASAP, and a gun is the most effective method of doing that. Maybe that seems cold, but my respect for an individual's right to keep living ceases when that person attempts to take the lives of innocent people. |
Shiner,
First, let me say that I'm pleased and impressed with the tone of your argument and thank you for that. For the most part, that goes for the rest of the posters as well. Second, unfortunately, I don't share any confidence that the average gun owner has the training and mental capacity to react cooly and rationally to this kind of situation. Third, given a situation like Columbine, Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois or the others, a lot of guns and no formal tactics among the owners would lead to dangerous crossfire situations with the potential for a lot of innocent casualities. Not meant to be humerous, but the last thing needed is to form a "circular firing squad." Finally, as a small hijack, this discussion has led me to Google a lot of information on Columbine which I hadn't before. My interest in this particular case is because the school is about ten miles from my home, and the facility in which I worked then, and now work again, is four or five miles away and became the headquarters for ABC News, as well as feeds for CNN and other news agencies. When the shooting happened, I was called back from the National Association of Broadcasters conference overnight to help coordinate. The stuff I "Googled" is pretty dry prose, but fascinating. And scary. |
Quote:
1) Depending on the state, anyone can purchase a weapon with relative ease (unless you live in a state that people jokingly refer to as the "People's Republic of _________."). Carrying is an entirely different ballgame. 2 and 3) Even if I were to give you that the average gunowner is irresponsible, I'd strongly argue that the average person who carries concealed is not (this isn't the case, I think the average gun owner is at least as responsible as the average person driving a car). Many states require training. Almost all require heightened background checks, fees, and often extended waiting periods. I strongly suggest from my experience and from reading extensively on the subject that those who will go through the hassles of legal concealed carry take their role very seriously. Many, many such people take firearm training above that which is required. Every person I've ever met (seriously) who legally conceals a weapon practices regularly, and that practice isn't inexpensive. Internet searches will yield thousands of threads about when to act and when to refrain to doing so, and I've found that this is absolutely one of the most intense communities when it comes to disciplining and shaming their own. These people live and die by the four rules of gun handling, and I think it shows. You simply do not hear about a person carrying concealed hurting innocent people very often. It is quite simply, extremely rare. Further, I gave you information about the hassles and cost of carrying concealed to further the idea that not everyone is going to run out and do this. In fact, I suspect relatively few will. Not only is it expensive and time consuming, it simply isn't overly comfortable to do. As a recent college student, I imagine the idea of going to your local probate court during business hours is enough to dissuade all but the truly dedicated. Finally, I simply don't buy into the logic of the collateral damage argument. Because some people could get hurt in a "crossfire", we're not going to allow anyone a means to defend themselves? Is there really any merit to keeping all the rounds going in one direction when that direction is the rest of the class? There are always risks. But if I'm sitting in a classroom with a gunman spraying fire, I'm praying someone has something that can stop him. If its my family or friends in there, I'd much rather risk the chance of them being injured by a gun-owner trying to do the right thing. To me that is a much better gamble than having them defenseless against someone who is intent on taking as many lives as possible. I know I can't give everyone confidence that this is the best solution. It isn't even really a solution, to me it is simply a common sense extension of rights granted everywhere besides on a college campus. However, for those not familiar with guns or gun safety, I encourage you to have a look around the internet and do a bit of research. Head out to the range with a friend who knows what they're doing. I think you'll find that the "gun-culture" in America is a culture that places an extremely high emphasis on personal responsibility and safety. |
Quote:
Now, I point you to Professor Livriu Lebretscu - the concentration camp survivor who taught at Virginia Tech - who shielded his students with his body. Had that man CHOSEN (again, I'm speaking only of those who CHOOSE to be armed) to be armed, would there have been 32 dead? I doubt it. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
My response in parenthesis
Quote:
|
Quote:
While the NRA does a slightly better job of backing up its opinions with data, neither is a credible source. I challenge you to find credible research supporting your point. |
Quote:
Which gets to another issue regarding whose gun access is okay and whose gun access will scare the sweetbejeebus out of people: Are people advocating legalizing guns on college campuses but only for certain types of people from certain socioeconomic backgrounds on certain types of campuses? Background checks are meant to look for background checks, mental health profiles (maybe), and so forth. Sure, background checks are a type of profiling but it isn't profiling based on factors like race and socioeconomic status. Right? It depends on who you ask. Quote:
For the purpose of this discussion, please refer to my previous response. Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:01 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.