oh louisiana.

[justfollowingtheelections]

And what happens when someone who gets insulted or pissed off decides to pull out a gun instead of fists?

Then someone gets shot. But you're pretending that this rule has any affect on the ability of people to carry guns. Anyone can conceal a handgun in their jacket, backpack or baggy pants. So if you're a violent type who shoots people randomly, you can already bring your gun.

In fact, a gunless fight occurred at my school last year in which it might've turned out better if some sane, law-abiding citizens actually did carry guns.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2008/06/27/2008-06-27_binghamton_university_student_at_heart_o.html

At a bar in Binghamton, where I go to school, a 6'9" basketball player stomped a 130 pound kids head in and put him in a coma for nearly a year. The kid couldn't stop him, no one around could stop him, and the guy beat him until he decided to leave and flee.

The bar is centrally located near other bars, and so there are always cops on the street. Literally there are cops no more than 15 feet from teh doorway of the bar, where this occured, and the guy got away after stomping this guys head in and nearly killing him.

Another situation where if some law-abiding, non-crazy citizens had guns that things could've turned out for the better, but in this case, the 6'9" guy can do whatever he wants.

and he could do worse if he had a gun.  there are two sides to every argument you know

[Jacobtm]

the reason they have strict gun controls is because of the high crime rates. 

There is no gun control on college campuses. Anyone can bring a gun anywhere on campus. There are no metal detectors, no security checkpoints, no bag searches, nothing.

[justfollowingtheelections]

the reason they have strict gun controls is because of the high crime rates. 

There is no gun control on college campuses. Anyone can bring a gun anywhere on campus. There are no metal detectors, no security checkpoints, no bag searches, nothing.

he said that places with strict gun control have higher crime rates and was using that as an argument to why gun control is ineffective.  that's what i was responding too.  he wasn't talking specifically about college campuses.

[Jacobtm]

and he could do worse if he had a gun.  there are two sides to every argument you know

Yes, of course. But it goes from a completely unfair fight to a situation where the victim could potentially defend himself. As it is the kid is lucky he survived, another kick probably would've killed him. I've seen footage of him, and there are people who've been shot in the head who recovered far more fully.

[justfollowingtheelections]

and he could do worse if he had a gun.  there are two sides to every argument you know

Yes, of course. But it goes from a completely unfair fight to a situation where the victim could potentially defend himself. As it is the kid is lucky he survived, another kick probably would've killed him. I've seen footage of him, and there are people who've been shot in the head who recovered far more fully.

well true, but don't you think that the person with violent tendencies would be more likely to carry a gun than the poor victim of the case you describe (or a rape victim perhaps)?

[Associate Justice PiT]

I contacted my state rep asking him to support this bill.

why would you want people to bring their guns on a college campus?

senator realisticidealist:  false.  has it occurred to you that most people don't particularly care about carrying a gun?  what this does is make it easier for people to start shooting each other.  it's ridiculous to say that someone would bring a gun on campus to defend themselves.  it's far more likely that potential shooters will do that instead.

this is almost as ridiculous as the argument that gun control makes it more difficult for women to defend themselves from rapists, when everyone knows that the rapists are far more likely to own a gun than the victims and therefore use it to commit a crime.

     You seem to presuppose that gun control makes it significantly less likely for those who want to shoot up a college campus to be able to do so. I posit that that is not the case.

That is pretty much what I was saying. Gun control won't stop someone who really wants to shoot up a campus from trying. Gun laws might dissuade a few people who might have wanted to, but so might the knowledge that people may be carrying them for self-defense. Sure, most people won't carry a gun to school, but all it takes is one person carrying one to defend themself to save many lives.

i honestly doubt that someone would be discouraged to bring a gun to school to shoot people just because they know others will be carrying them as well.  my other argument is that someone who is inclined to shoot people is more likely to carry a gun than someone who isn't.  it's very similar to what i said above about rapists and rape victims.

     Yet if a gunman comes to shoot 50 kids & just one of them happens to be carrying a gun, the shooter's rampage could meet an early end. It isn't to say that this would completely end all campus shootings, but it could potentially save numerous lives if we suppose that it does not significantly increase the odds of a campus shooting occurring, but does increase the odds of a gunman being killed before killing all or most of his targets.

[justfollowingtheelections]

I contacted my state rep asking him to support this bill.

why would you want people to bring their guns on a college campus?

senator realisticidealist:  false.  has it occurred to you that most people don't particularly care about carrying a gun?  what this does is make it easier for people to start shooting each other.  it's ridiculous to say that someone would bring a gun on campus to defend themselves.  it's far more likely that potential shooters will do that instead.

this is almost as ridiculous as the argument that gun control makes it more difficult for women to defend themselves from rapists, when everyone knows that the rapists are far more likely to own a gun than the victims and therefore use it to commit a crime.

     You seem to presuppose that gun control makes it significantly less likely for those who want to shoot up a college campus to be able to do so. I posit that that is not the case.

That is pretty much what I was saying. Gun control won't stop someone who really wants to shoot up a campus from trying. Gun laws might dissuade a few people who might have wanted to, but so might the knowledge that people may be carrying them for self-defense. Sure, most people won't carry a gun to school, but all it takes is one person carrying one to defend themself to save many lives.

i honestly doubt that someone would be discouraged to bring a gun to school to shoot people just because they know others will be carrying them as well.  my other argument is that someone who is inclined to shoot people is more likely to carry a gun than someone who isn't.  it's very similar to what i said above about rapists and rape victims.

     Yet if a gunman comes to shoot 50 kids & just one of them happens to be carrying a gun, the shooter's rampage could meet an early end. It isn't to say that this would completely end all campus shootings, but it could potentially save numerous lives if we suppose that it does not significantly increase the odds of a campus shooting occurring, but does increase the odds of a gunman being killed before killing all or most of his targets.

and at the same time it increases the likelihood that someone with violent tendencies would bring a gun.  so if instead of killing 50 he kills 10 (and there's a very good reason why i say he) and we have 5 such incidents instead of 1, the results are the same.

[justfollowingtheelections]

i can't continue this discussion right now, but i promise to respond to any other arguments presented later

[Associate Justice PiT]

I contacted my state rep asking him to support this bill.

why would you want people to bring their guns on a college campus?

senator realisticidealist:  false.  has it occurred to you that most people don't particularly care about carrying a gun?  what this does is make it easier for people to start shooting each other.  it's ridiculous to say that someone would bring a gun on campus to defend themselves.  it's far more likely that potential shooters will do that instead.

this is almost as ridiculous as the argument that gun control makes it more difficult for women to defend themselves from rapists, when everyone knows that the rapists are far more likely to own a gun than the victims and therefore use it to commit a crime.

     You seem to presuppose that gun control makes it significantly less likely for those who want to shoot up a college campus to be able to do so. I posit that that is not the case.

That is pretty much what I was saying. Gun control won't stop someone who really wants to shoot up a campus from trying. Gun laws might dissuade a few people who might have wanted to, but so might the knowledge that people may be carrying them for self-defense. Sure, most people won't carry a gun to school, but all it takes is one person carrying one to defend themself to save many lives.

i honestly doubt that someone would be discouraged to bring a gun to school to shoot people just because they know others will be carrying them as well.  my other argument is that someone who is inclined to shoot people is more likely to carry a gun than someone who isn't.  it's very similar to what i said above about rapists and rape victims.

     Yet if a gunman comes to shoot 50 kids & just one of them happens to be carrying a gun, the shooter's rampage could meet an early end. It isn't to say that this would completely end all campus shootings, but it could potentially save numerous lives if we suppose that it does not significantly increase the odds of a campus shooting occurring, but does increase the odds of a gunman being killed before killing all or most of his targets.

and at the same time it increases the likelihood that someone with violent tendencies would bring a gun.  so if instead of killing 50 he kills 10 (and there's a very good reason why i say he) and we have 5 such incidents instead of 1, the results are the same.

     Again, someone who wants to shoot up a school campus would likely not be affected by gun control. Someone who brings a gun for self-protection purposes (& would not bring one if it were illegal) hardly fits the ideal profile for a potential shooter with violent tendencies. Such a person would also likely not shoot more than 1-2 people if an incident were to occur, & would probably be capable of doing comparable damage unarmed. I slightly doubt that the pencil-necked geek who got dunked in toilets in grammar school would be the first one to get into a spur-of-the-moment gunfight.

[justfollowingtheelections]

I think you're overestimating the number of people who would bring a gun simply to defend themselves.  I can tell you that the last thing most college students have in mind is defending themselves on the case of such an incident.  You're also forgetting that in order to protect yourself and other students you need to be a good shooter yourself or you could cause more harm than good.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I think you're overestimating the number of people who would bring a gun simply to defend themselves.  I can tell you that the last thing most college students have in mind is defending themselves on the case of such an incident.  You're also forgetting that in order to protect yourself and other students you need to be a good shooter yourself or you could cause more harm than good.

     I think you overestimate the number of students who'll bring guns just to have them to settle disputes compared to the number who brought them illegally anyway or the number who'll bring them for self-defense. I suspect it would go from 1 incident kiiling 50 to 5 incidents killing 15-20, but only time will tell.

     I do think that people who carry guns in self-defense should take a course to learn gun use & safety, but I'm not sure how best to implement that. Maybe make it a college course which to enroll in you would need proof of ownership & registration of a legally purchased firearm.

[??????????]

I contacted my state rep asking him to support this bill.

why would you want people to bring their guns on a college campus?

senator realisticidealist:  false.  has it occurred to you that most people don't particularly care about carrying a gun?  what this does is make it easier for people to start shooting each other.  it's ridiculous to say that someone would bring a gun on campus to defend themselves.  it's far more likely that potential shooters will do that instead.

this is almost as ridiculous as the argument that gun control makes it more difficult for women to defend themselves from rapists, when everyone knows that the rapists are far more likely to own a gun than the victims and therefore use it to commit a crime.

People spread the same lies about CW laws and here in Florida just the opposite has happened. Crime dropped and crimes committed by CW licensees is nearly non-existent. I think we've had maybe 2-3 crimes by CW carriers since the law was passed.

[Jacobtm]

well true, but don't you think that the person with violent tendencies would be more likely to carry a gun than the poor victim of the case you describe (or a rape victim perhaps)?

Yes but that is already the status quo.

The person with violent tendencies owned a gun. In his facebook account, there were pictures of him holding a shotgun, whiskey and smoking a cigar, aiming the gun angrily at the camera. I don't know if he had anything like a handgun, but he owned weapons already.

The point is that in this country it is very easy to buy a gun, legally or illegally. Many violent people do own guns, and I know many people buy guns legally and then use them illegally. You have to recognize that the status quo allows people with violent/criminal intentions to purchase and carry guns anywhere. If they're caught there is legal ramifications, but people who are violent like that probably don't care. The point of liberalizing gun laws is to allow law-abiding, sane people to at least be able to compete with the maniacs who already have free access to firearms and don't have discretion.

[Brandon H]

I feel better with sane and insane people both having weapons than just the insane ones.

And I work on a college campus.

[Zarn]

I agree.

It's insane to only have illegal firearms on campus.

[Smash255]

the reason they have strict gun controls is because of the high crime rates. 

There is no gun control on college campuses. Anyone can bring a gun anywhere on campus. There are no metal detectors, no security checkpoints, no bag searches, nothing.

he said that places with strict gun control have higher crime rates and was using that as an argument to why gun control is ineffective.  that's what i was responding too.  he wasn't talking specifically about college campuses.

I live on Long Island where we have very strict gun control, we have among the lowest % of gun owners in the entire country and one of the lowest crime rates as well.

[Smash255]

well true, but don't you think that the person with violent tendencies would be more likely to carry a gun than the poor victim of the case you describe (or a rape victim perhaps)?

Yes but that is already the status quo.

The person with violent tendencies owned a gun. In his facebook account, there were pictures of him holding a shotgun, whiskey and smoking a cigar, aiming the gun angrily at the camera. I don't know if he had anything like a handgun, but he owned weapons already.

The point is that in this country it is very easy to buy a gun, legally or illegally. Many violent people do own guns, and I know many people buy guns legally and then use them illegally. You have to recognize that the status quo allows people with violent/criminal intentions to purchase and carry guns anywhere. If they're caught there is legal ramifications, but people who are violent like that probably don't care. The point of liberalizing gun laws is to allow law-abiding, sane people to at least be able to compete with the maniacs who already have free access to firearms and don't have discretion.

Which is why we need gun registration, full and complete background checks, no loopholes at gun shows.  None of these things will prevent a law abiding citizen from being able to legally obtain guns, but it does make it more difficult for guns to end up in the wrong hands.

[Zarn]

the reason they have strict gun controls is because of the high crime rates. 

There is no gun control on college campuses. Anyone can bring a gun anywhere on campus. There are no metal detectors, no security checkpoints, no bag searches, nothing.

he said that places with strict gun control have higher crime rates and was using that as an argument to why gun control is ineffective.  that's what i was responding too.  he wasn't talking specifically about college campuses.

I live on Long Island where we have very strict gun control, we have among the lowest % of gun owners in the entire country and one of the lowest crime rates as well.

Knowing Long Island, it wouldn't suffer from an increase in guns.

[Associate Justice PiT]

the reason they have strict gun controls is because of the high crime rates. 

There is no gun control on college campuses. Anyone can bring a gun anywhere on campus. There are no metal detectors, no security checkpoints, no bag searches, nothing.

he said that places with strict gun control have higher crime rates and was using that as an argument to why gun control is ineffective.  that's what i was responding too.  he wasn't talking specifically about college campuses.

I live on Long Island where we have very strict gun control, we have among the lowest % of gun owners in the entire country and one of the lowest crime rates as well.

     Um, you live in suburbia. Considering the tendency of suburban people to 1) not commit loads of crime, 2) be afraid of guns, & 3) generally support gun control, it seems to me that low crime rates & strict gun control are both caused by it being suburban, not low crime being caused by gun control.

[Jacobtm]

I live on Long Island where we have very strict gun control, we have among the lowest % of gun owners in the entire country and one of the lowest crime rates as well.

You live on Long Island where it's very rich, and rich people don't have the same motivations as poor people to commit violent crimes. Just the fact of being in Nassau or Suffolk doesn't mean you're safe though, there are plenty of dangerous poor neighborhoods where people do got shot. In places where everyone's mommy and daddy aren't quite so rich, people actually have to worry about the real-world problem of defending yourself.

[Sam Spade]

FF

[Smash255]

I live on Long Island where we have very strict gun control, we have among the lowest % of gun owners in the entire country and one of the lowest crime rates as well.

You live on Long Island where it's very rich, and rich people don't have the same motivations as poor people to commit violent crimes. Just the fact of being in Nassau or Suffolk doesn't mean you're safe though, there are plenty of dangerous poor neighborhoods where people do got shot. In places where everyone's mommy and daddy aren't quite so rich, people actually have to worry about the real-world problem of defending yourself.

Even in the poorer areas of Long Island (Hempstead, Roosevelt, Wyandanch) while it does have some crime it is still quite a bit below what other areas with similar poverty rates have.  Fact of the matter is gun registration and stringent background checks won't keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

[Jacobtm]

Even in the poorer areas of Long Island (Hempstead, Roosevelt, Wyandanch) while it does have some crime it is still quite a bit below what other areas with similar poverty rates have.  Fact of the matter is gun registration and stringent background checks won't keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Registration and background checks are fine, and besides the point of whether people should be allowed to carry guns legally on campus. The discussion here is whether law abiding citizens, who jump through the proper hoops, should be allowed to defend themselves on campuses.

[Smash255]

Even in the poorer areas of Long Island (Hempstead, Roosevelt, Wyandanch) while it does have some crime it is still quite a bit below what other areas with similar poverty rates have.  Fact of the matter is gun registration and stringent background checks won't keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Registration and background checks are fine, and besides the point of whether people should be allowed to carry guns legally on campus. The discussion here is whether law abiding citizens, who jump through the proper hoops, should be allowed to defend themselves on campuses.

Which I don't think should be the case, but for the most part the areas these laws are passed are in states with very loose gun laws where any nut job can go to a gun show and legally purchase a gun with little or no checks.

[Zarn]

Even in the poorer areas of Long Island (Hempstead, Roosevelt, Wyandanch) while it does have some crime it is still quite a bit below what other areas with similar poverty rates have.  Fact of the matter is gun registration and stringent background checks won't keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Registration and background checks are fine, and besides the point of whether people should be allowed to carry guns legally on campus. The discussion here is whether law abiding citizens, who jump through the proper hoops, should be allowed to defend themselves on campuses.

Which I don't think should be the case, but for the most part the areas these laws are passed are in states with very loose gun laws where any nut job can go to a gun show and legally purchase a gun with little or no checks.

Shooters find a way to get guns, anyway. Notice VT and Columbine did not allow guns. That did not help.