Guns on campus. What do you think?

[metis]

No, never saw the movie. As far as the prejudices, bigotry, discrimination, riots, lynchings,etc went I think it all depended where you lived. I spent my early live in Kansas (1942-1956). It was somewhat segregated but to tell you the truth it was never an issue with us kids and I don't remember any problems. We all went to the same schools, I do know that the public swimming pool was whites only and there was another public pool for "Negros". Not being racist here, that was the term in those days.

The fact that it was largely segregated should tell you something. And do you remember Brown v Board of Education of Topeka?

Generally speaking, discrimination against a minority tends to run higher in areas whereas there's a larger number of them, especially if they're quite conspicuous.

 

[esmith]

The fact that it was largely segregated should tell you something. And do you remember Brown v Board of Education of Topeka?

Generally speaking, discrimination against a minority tends to run higher in areas whereas there's a larger number of them, especially if they're quite conspicuous.

Well let see, in 1954 I was 12 years old, we didn't have a television, I didn't read the local paper and I was more concerned why Mary Bingle was more interested in Roger than me. Also I was too busy with my paper-route, Scouts, baseball, hunting, fishing, daily chores around the property,etc. to be concerned about something that was occurring at the other end of the State. When you are young only events directly affecting you are remembered.

 

[metis]

Well let see, in 1954 I was 12 years old, we didn't have a television, I didn't read the local paper and I was more concerned why Mary Bingle was more interested in Roger than me. Also I was too busy with my paper-route, Scouts, baseball, hunting, fishing, daily chores around the property,etc. to be concerned about something that was occurring at the other end of the State. When you are young only events directly affecting you are remembered.

Hey, I understand as I'm gonna be 69 this Sunday.

When the racism hit me was when I was just in my early years in high school, and I kept hearing so many of my neighbors spout all sorts of racist stereotypes. My parents were racists as well, but at least they didn't really talk about it when my sister and I were growing up. Trust me, there's a lot more to this story than just this.

 

[CMike]

In the end, despite all arguments, violence does not solve violence. Wanting more guns to fix the gun problem is nothing more than putting a band-aid over a large gash that needs surgery and multiple stitches. In the end, it will fix nothing.

What method were the nazis defeated?

 

[dust1n]

Once you post some support for your position - if you post some support for your position - I'm sure tye discussion that follows will involve evidence from both sides as to whether your justification is or isn't valid.

Well, if it is any consolation, I agree with your concern and wanting to have a better argument for the proposition that a private school should be forced to allow individuals carry whatever they'd like on their property. My questions remain unanswered as well. I still can't think why such a limitation on those who own private property only applies to those that are schools.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It makes sense if Americastan would have even more victims of violence if law abiding
residents couldn't use guns to defend themselves. Comparison with other countries
is tough because of different populations, cultures, legal controls, & histories.

That is true, but I was pointing out there is no correlation between the presence of a gun and deterrence of crime. I've actually read studies that suggest the opposite, but these are the kinda of studies that make you wonder what sort of padded, bubbled, no-one ever gets hurt type of fantasy world these people live in.

[/color]

What method were the nazis defeated?

That is quite over simplified. The Axis was stopped, but who stopped the Allies? And because the end of WWII brought decades of war and political tension and instability I would hesitate to say peace was the end result of WWII. Ergo violence does not solve violence.

 

[CMike]

That is true, but I was pointing out there is no correlation between the presence of a gun and deterrence of crime. I've actually read studies that suggest the opposite, but these are the kinda of studies that make you wonder what sort of padded, bubbled, no-one ever gets hurt type of fantasy world these people live in.


That is quite over simplified. The Axis was stopped, but who stopped the Allies? And because the end of WWII brought decades of war and political tension and instability I would hesitate to say peace was the end result of WWII. Ergo violence does not solve violence.

By what method was the Axis stopped?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

By what method was the Axis stopped?

It certainly wasn't stopped by privately owned handguns.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is true, but I was pointing out there is no correlation between the presence of a gun and deterrence of crime. I've actually read studies that suggest the opposite, but these are the kinda of studies that make you wonder what sort of padded, bubbled, no-one ever gets hurt type of fantasy world these people live in.

When Florida required special license plates on rental cars, they discovered a high rate of assault on the occupants. They figured this was due to perps expecting a lower rate of gun possession in such vehicles. The state then switched'm to ordinary plates, & the assault rate declined. (This is what I recall.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, let me get this straight, you are objecting that I not read all of your post even though parts of them are not germane to what I was referring to.

No, I'm objecting to you chopping off my quotes mid-sentence to get rid of the bit about justifiable limits, which is most certainly germane to the discussion.

The point of my contention was: Therefor how am I misrepresenting you when I ask a direct question about your statement?

You were asking me a question about HALF of my statement, and it was misrepresentation because leaving out half of it distorted its meaning.

You contention seems to be if you are in favor of a law, you have no issue about it; but if you have a problem with a law you have an issue. Just to make it clear I am not discussing the healthcare issue per se, only the idea that it is a law that mandates what a entity must do. You saying that just because "you" think that the current health insurance is good for the country and it is a law then no one has the right to challenge it.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

Why is it no different that if my state passes a law that says that concealed weapons are legal on all private or public educational property and an educational entity disagrees with this law and says that you can not carry a concealed weapon on their property.

What justification could you use for such a law? AFAICT, the only rational justification for the right to carry a concealed weapon is personal freedom, but personal freedom also supports the idea of property rights. This means that any justification you could use is inherently contradictory: the same appeal to the freedom of the firearm owner to justify them carrying their weapon also supports the right of a property owner to prohibit guns if that's what he chooses.

The only way I can see to get out of this problem is to appeal to some safety increase because of the weapon, but to do this properly - i.e. to give something that would justify setting aside the property owner's rights - is to provide evidence that this safety increase actually exists and is large enough that it outweighs the harm of limiting the property owner's rights.

Why would it be no different that a owner of a private business saying that they disagree with marriage between people of the same sex and will not partake in any business with that ceremony? Are they not different that what you are advocating in your statement. Before you and others make a fallacy of jumping to the conclusion that I agree with the business owner over same sex marriage. Let me set the record straight, I am using that as a basics for my argument only.

I'd be more than happy to hear your argument for how denying people's guns access to college campuses causes societal harm akin to the sort caused by discrimination against LGBT people.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When Florida required special license plates on rental cars, they discovered a high rate of assault on the occupants. They figured this was due to perps expecting a lower rate of gun possession in such vehicles. The state then switched'm to ordinary plates, & the assault rate declined. (This is what I recall.)

Yes... it couldn't be because "rental" suggests "tourist", which suggests "person unfamiliar with the area who may be carrying more money and valuables than the average person", could it?

BTW: the trend of not calling attention to the fact that a rental car is a rental hit Canada, too.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes... it couldn't be because "rental" suggests "tourist", which suggests "person unfamiliar with the area who may be carrying more money and valuables than the average person", could it?

It certainly could be that these unarmed tourists had more geld.
And similar arguments will be made about studies anti-gun advocates
proffer. The real world is complicated.

 

[esmith]

What justification could you use for such a law? AFAICT, the only rational justification for the right to carry a concealed weapon is personal freedom, but personal freedom also supports the idea of property rights. This means that any justification you could use is inherently contradictory: the same appeal to the freedom of the firearm owner to justify them carrying their weapon also supports the right of a property owner to prohibit guns if that's what he chooses.

The only way I can see to get out of this problem is to appeal to some safety increase because of the weapon, but to do this properly - i.e. to give something that would justify setting aside the property owner's rights - is to provide evidence that this safety increase actually exists and is large enough that it outweighs the harm of limiting the property owner's rights.


I'd be more than happy to hear your argument for how denying people's guns access to college campuses causes societal harm akin to the sort caused by discrimination against LGBT people.

No, you do not seem to understand, on one hand you are advocating for the property rights of private party then in the next advocating that property rights of private property is not valid. In addition you seem to be of the opinion that I have a certain stance on the LGBT community. This is not germane to the discussion on property rights.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

When Florida required special license plates on rental cars, they discovered a high rate of assault on the occupants. They figured this was due to perps expecting a lower rate of gun possession in such vehicles. The state then switched'm to ordinary plates, & the assault rate declined. (This is what I recall.)

Are you sure it was due to that?

It sounds like if you advertise (make a distinction) that the car is a rental vs. a non-rental then a criminal has a better chance of spotting its "mark". A car designated and identified as a rental could easily be carjacked or stolen because a criminal can infer a few things from it. He/she may think the person is from out of town and/or the person they want to take the car from can be easily over powered.

I found a neat little chart concerning home burglaries. The chart suggest that the two top states where gun owners are coo-coo for their guns (Texas and Florida) have some of the highest rates of burglaries. California leads the pack but not by much in compared to Texas.

Burglary statistics - states compared - Crime data on StateMaster
California - 246,464
Texas - 215,647
Florida - 170,873

Edit: This site puts Florida in a more favorable light but still has them coming in at number 3.

States with the Highest and Lowest Auto Theft Rates

 

[Revoltingest]

Are you sure it was due to that?

Of course not, jackanape!

It sounds like if you advertise (make a distinction) that the car is a rental vs. a non-rental then a criminal has a better chance of spotting its "mark". A car designated and identified as a rental could easily be carjacked or stolen because a criminal can infer a few things from it. He/she may think the person is from out of town and/or the person they want to take the car from can be easily over powered.
I found a neat little chart concerning home burglaries. The chart suggest that the two top states where gun owners are coo-coo for their guns (Texas and Florida) have some of the highest rates of burglaries. California leads the pack but not by much in compared to Texas.
Burglary statistics - states compared - Crime data on StateMaster
California - 246,464
Texas - 215,647
Florida - 170,873

It seems you agree that statistical studies can only suggest a connection.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It seems you agree that statistical studies can only suggest a connection.

I never suggested otherwise. So far from what I can tell Florida is coming in at #3 when it comes to car thefts. Crimes may have gone up when they identified cars as rental and gone back down when they reversed it....but it could has easily been a result in vehicle identification/classification and less to do with gun ownership/conceal carry.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, you do not seem to understand, on one hand you are advocating for the property rights of private party then in the next advocating that property rights of private property is not valid.

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you explain further?

Property rights are always important. I'm arguing that they should only be limited when they're outweighed by something more important (e.g. avoiding the societal harm of widespread discrimination).

In addition you seem to be of the opinion that I have a certain stance on the LGBT community. This is not germane to the discussion on property rights.

I didn't say anything about your stance on the LGBT community.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you sure it was due to that?

It sounds like if you advertise (make a distinction) that the car is a rental vs. a non-rental then a criminal has a better chance of spotting its "mark". A car designated and identified as a rental could easily be carjacked or stolen because a criminal can infer a few things from it. He/she may think the person is from out of town and/or the person they want to take the car from can be easily over powered.

I found a neat little chart concerning home burglaries. The chart suggest that the two top states where gun owners are coo-coo for their guns (Texas and Florida) have some of the highest rates of burglaries. California leads the pack but not by much in compared to Texas.

Burglary statistics - states compared - Crime data on StateMaster
California - 246,464
Texas - 215,647
Florida - 170,873

Those aren't burglary rates; they're burglary frequencies. They don't mean much in this context unless you convert them into a rate per unit of population. Right now, it seems like all those stats tell us is that the larger a state's population, the more burglaries it has.

 

[dust1n]

When Florida required special license plates on rental cars, they discovered a high rate of assault on the occupants. They figured this was due to perps expecting a lower rate of gun possession in such vehicles. The state then switched'm to ordinary plates, & the assault rate declined. (This is what I recall.)

That's strange. Is it even the case that rental cars have a lower rate of gun possession?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Those aren't burglary rates; they're burglary frequencies. They don't mean much in this context unless you convert them into a rate per unit of population. Right now, it seems like all those stats tell us is that the larger a state's population, the more burglaries it has.

What it tells me is that criminals aren't all that deterred by a state that advocates gun ownership and/or conceal carry. That's what I was attempting to show....