Guns on campus. What do you think?

[McBell]

I'm not arguing on the basis of safety. I'm arguing on the basis of the idea that private institutions should be free to conduct their affairs as they see fit unless a compelling justification can be made for why they shouldn't be.

Fair enough.

It's not unsolicited and it's not an ad hominem.

:biglaugh:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

:biglaugh:

Ad hominem is when you make conclusions about a person's argument based on the person's characteristics. Making conclusions about a person based on their argument is not ad hominem.

Ad hominem: "You're not a libertarian, therefore your position is inconsistent with libertarianism."

Not an ad hominem: "You advocate a position that's inconsistent with libertarianism, therefore I question whether you're actually a libertarian."

 

[Sees]

No more so than the idea that a firearm ban increases a campus' level of security.

Out of curiosity, of all the school shootings in the past say 50 years in the USA, how many were conducted on a campus that allowed firearms?


Likewise.
If you are going to argue on the basis of safety then we will need some evidence that your position is based on fact.

so, how many of the school shootings the last 50 years were conducted on a campus that allowed fire arms?


Um...
The fact that no new laws means no change in school security?




An unsolicited ad hominem?
Shame on you.

Truth is incidents occuring any place where 3 or more people are armed is extremely rare. what you do get is suicide by cop but I don't know how rare that is and if the experts see that ever branching out.

 

[Father Heathen]

What should be the benefit of that? I do believe that the world would be a better place without everyone carrying guns in their everyday life. Why would I carry a gun on a campus?

I don't know, I think having the capability to defend oneself should the need arise might have some benefits.

 

[Father Heathen]

Given that there have been campus shootings and some mass shootings I'm not so quick to dismiss the concerns of others and write them off as (knee jerked reactions).

It's precisely because of such events that some students might desire a means to protect themselves and others should such a situation occur.

 

[Revoltingest]

But you can "defend" yourself and your family by simply not going there.

I could defend myself by avoiding dangerous places, but I prefer to have them
become less dangerous to me, hence my support for the legal change.

And universities that allow weapons advertise to mass murderers that they can freely roam the campus with the tools of their trade. Do you have any evidence that this is less attractive to mass murderers than banning weapons would be?

It is public knowledge that universities harbor defenseless people.
Mass murders have a tendency to occur in such places, eg, schools, military bases.
You keep asking me for evidence. Why not offer some of your own?

Can you try again, this time actually answering the question?

I did. I addressed security at entry points. There is much more to it, but it's rather
beyond the scope of this thread for me to give detailed measures I'd recommend.

Again: how do you measure "adequacy"?

I have no metric for adequacy, but I'd expect that if I'm prevented from
defending myself, they should prevent.....wait, I've already addressed this.

They can decide whether or not to go there.

That's your preferred solution.
It's not mine.

And students who want neither to be around armed students or to pay for security would just be SOL, eh?

They're around armed individuals as soon as they leave the campus, so this would be no different.

I've been specifically addressing private schools.

I've been addressing the general case of both public & private schools.

Nothing that a college can do can "take away a right to self defense", since regardless of any restrictions the college places on people on its campus, this right can simply be maintained by choosing not to go there. Nobody forces you to attend a particular school.

Nobody forces a school to stay in business if they refuse to have adequate security.
I propose giving them a choice:
- Allow self defense.
- Provide security.
- Go out of business.
They get to pick which suits them.

I'm being honest.

"Honesty" is a poor excuse for incivility.
I've not been equally "honest" with you.
See...I'm actually nicer than I get credit for.

I used a small "L" for a reason.

I notice when you use small or capital "L", & I answer accordingly

And the only stereotype I was expecting you to fit was a position that's against unnecessary interference by government in the freedom of private individuals and organizations to be free to conduct themselves as they see fit. You know... libertarianism.

Things are never so simple as a narrow & doctrinaire interpretation by an outsider of a philosophy.

Often, the rules for things like fire protection allow for "approved equivalent" methods: if one approach works just as well as some previously approved approach, it will often be allowed.
Now... you seem to be okay with the approach of "status quo plus allowing concealed carry". So... do you have any evidence that the approach of "status quo without concealed carry" provides any less of a level of safety than the approach you consider acceptable?
If you don't have any evidence to this effect, then what justification do you have for making institutions jump through extra hoops?

I'm giving you my preferences & reasons.
You're welcome to disagree....& provide evidence of your own.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not an ad hominem: "You advocate a position that's inconsistent with libertarianism, therefore I question whether you're actually a libertarian."

Since the issue is not my libertarian status, this is more of a red herring than an ad hominem.
In either case, there's no need to make it about me, especially using an informal fallacy.

 

[dust1n]

I don't get it. If everyone supposedly has the right to carry a gun with a concealed weapons license onto a private school, then how would this not apply to any and all institutions private?

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't get it. If everyone supposedly has the right to carry a gun with a concealed weapons license onto a private school, then how would this not apply to any and all institutions private?

Typically, it's prohibited in private schools too, eg, Michiganistan.
I think a distinction was being made about the state applying a
liberalized concealed carry law to private, as opposed to public
schools. That stuck me as an odd distinction to make.

 

[CMike]

Idaho House Panel Backs Guns on Campus - ABC News
I recently came across this during a search for firearm accessories. I had to take a double take given some of the recent and past events of shootings on campus. I was suprised that it isn't isolated and it really isn't a new phenomenon.

See....
Texas House Approves Campus Carry Bill Permitting Guns At Colleges

Some students want to be allowed to carry concealed weapons on University of Kentucky campus | Education | Kentucky.com

I'm concerned about kids that are stressed being away from home, bullying, relationships issues, drugs and alcohol as well as some other factors alongside those carrying guns.

Tell me what you all think.

Criminals don't care about following laws.

Law abiding citizens do care about following laws.

Making schools pistol free zones means that they are only pistol free from law abiding citizens, not only do criminals carry guns there, but they know that honest citizens can't carry guns legally.

Therefore, it's a great place to find prey.

What criminals with guns fear more than police are law abiding citizens with guns.

It's nuts to ban honest citizens from carrying guns at schools.

 

[CMike]

I think it's crazy because it's an accident waiting to happen. Is it more likely that some deranged madman or woman will just go in and shoot up the campus, or that some stressed out student or argument causes someone to "solve" their problem with a gun? I tend to think the latter is far more likely.

Really? How many times has it occurred?

Also, if a student was going to use a gun in school, he really isn't going to care about following the laws anyway. It's nuts.

 

[CMike]

What should be the benefit of that? I do believe that the world would be a better place without everyone carrying guns in their everyday life. Why would I carry a gun on a campus?

Maybe to stop an attacker? That would be a pretty good reason, no?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

And you are assuming that this "stress shooter" only happens on a campus, are students the only ones that have to deal with stress, that accidental accidents only happen on campus?

You're reading too much into it. I raised a concern tis all in order to spark discussion. I work for a public school system and know full well the stress factor of students at school as well as their home/family life. Not only do they deal with various stress and various levels of stress but their parents and friends do as well. Being a gun owner and someone who's been around firearms all my life I'm also aware of the "stress shooter"....but I'm not making an assumption that all on campus with a firearm are like this..which is why I was asking the question and looking for perspectives.

Why is it that you are assuming that only students have issues?

See above. It could be a teacher/faculty member. Could be a disgruntle parent upset at the break up of some boy and his daughter......

Or is it you are only putting forth this because of the discussion is on concealed carry on campuses?

My focus wasn't on conceal carry. It was simply on the notion of firearms on campus. Stop trying to make it more than what I've put forth.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I am a fan of carry on campuses for sure

I've spent a lot of time surrounded by college/university-aged kids who are armed and under much, much more stress constantly and consistently... incidents are extremely rare.

Thanks Sees....

 

[dust1n]

Typically, it's prohibited in private schools too, eg, Michiganistan.
I think a distinction was being made about the state applying a
liberalized concealed carry law to private, as opposed to public
schools. That stuck me as an odd distinction to make.

Either public or private school, I'm still not really getting at why it would the case that an individual gets the right to carry a weapon on public or private school property over the owner of that property's right to relegate their own policies... If I've understood everything correctly..

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Criminals don't care about following laws.

Law abiding citizens do care about following laws.

How do you define (law abiding). I sometimes think that everyone is law abiding up to the point where they break the law.

Making schools pistol free zones means that they are only pistol free from law abiding citizens, not only do criminals carry guns there, but they know that honest citizens can't carry guns legally.

I can see your point here. The criminal element isn't always the one you have to worry about. I worry about the good guy with the gun snapping for whatever reason and taking out people.

What criminals with guns fear more than police are law abiding citizens with guns.

We have plenty of evidence that this isn't necessarily true.

[youtube]Cc0_ttM8bak[/youtube]
World's Wildest Police Videos: Detroit Police Station Shootout - YouTube


Don't get me wrong CMike. I'm not making an argument against guns on campus. I have my concerns of their effectiveness in various stress filled situations but I'm not against private campuses allowing conceal carry. I'm not against a state's legislature allowing conceal carry on public campuses.

 

[Revoltingest]

Either public or private school, I'm still not really getting at why it would the case that an individual gets the right to carry a weapon on public or private school property over the owner of that property's right to relegate their own policies... If I've understood everything correctly..

Many private property owners' rights are regulated.
- I cannot discriminate in rental housing on the basis of educational affilation, race, religion, source of income, sexual orientation, family status, & a host of other protected classifications.
- I cannot pick up some types of wild bird feathers.
- I cannot remove a stand of trees over a certain size.
Requiring the observance of civil liberties is withing gov's purview.

 

[dust1n]

Many private property owners' rights are regulated.
- I cannot discriminate in rental housing on the basis of educational affilation, race, religion, source of income, sexual orientation, family status, & a host of other protected classifications.
- I cannot pick up some types of wild bird feathers.
- I cannot remove a stand of trees over a certain size.
Requiring the observance of civil liberties is withing gov's purview.

So, the regulation that should be maintained is the one that dictates that schools should be required to allow guns onto schools instead of the one that states individuals are subject to the discretion of the school they are attending? What, like on a federal level? Because it's a constitutional thing or something? Why would this only apply to schools and not other things, like public buildings, restaurants, parks, etc.?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I could defend myself by avoiding dangerous places, but I prefer to have them
become less dangerous to me, hence my support for the legal change.

You want mere preferences on your part to become obligations to someone else? Why?

It is public knowledge that universities harbor defenseless people.
Mass murders have a tendency to occur in such places, eg, schools, military bases.
You keep asking me for evidence. Why not offer some of your own?

You're the one arguing for laws that limit freedom. The burden of proof is yours.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Many private property owners' rights are regulated.
- I cannot discriminate in rental housing on the basis of educational affilation, race, religion, source of income, sexual orientation, family status, & a host of other protected classifications.
- I cannot pick up some types of wild bird feathers.
- I cannot remove a stand of trees over a certain size.
Requiring the observance of civil liberties is withing gov's purview.

And it's within the purview of private businesses and organizations to place all sorts of requirements on their visitors. For example:

- despite a constitutional right to freedom of speech, a library can require patrons to be quiet.
- despite choice of clothing generally being considered "protected speech", a night club can forbid jeans or gang colours.
- despite a right to freedom of assembly, that night club can prohibit people assembling inside if they haven't paid the cover charge.
- a college can prohibit commercial transactions on their property without the school's permission.
- despite a constitutional right to freedom of religion, a religious college can require students to adhere to a statement of faith.