• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Guns on campus. What do you think?

dust1n

dust1n

Zindīq
esmith

esmith

Veteran Member
dust1n said:
I'd suggest reading it. Had you, you could have realized that the study is debunking the methods of another study that is suggesting a strong correlation between gun ownership and lack of violent crime.



I see no clear discernible pattern. Do you?
Click to expand...

Yes I will admit to sloppy reading of the first article. Thought I read one thing and read another. Was in to much of a hurry to get something else done. As far as the second link after thinking about it I suspect there may be something wrong with it.
 
dust1n

dust1n

Zindīq
esmith said:
Yes I will admit to sloppy reading of the first article. Thought I read one thing and read another. Was in to much of a hurry to get something else done. As far as the second link after thinking about it I suspect there may be something wrong with it.
Click to expand...

And have your suspicions resulted in any actual investigation?
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
esmith said:
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.
Click to expand...
I remember plenty of events that had no effect on my, whatsoever, at all. Desert Storm, fall of the Berlin Wall, DADT, and a number of local events that didn't effect me I do remember. And that was when I was a little kid. When I was 12, I could go on for awhile about all the stuff I remember that had no effect on me. Granted that was less time, but the point is you don't forget things that happened in your childhood just because they had no effect on you.

Revoltingest said:
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.)
Click to expand...
Because there is no possible way that a criminal would see these plates and assume "this person is not from around here, probably has loads of money of them, and because they are on vacation they won't be expecting it" and these criminals knew for sure who had a gun and who didn't. Actually one of the first rules of vacation safety is to not broadcast that you are a tourist.
CMike said:
By what method was the Axis stopped?
Click to expand...
Typical American thinking. It's not only how we wrap our minds around this idea that "we beat the Axis," it's how we warp our minds into accepting things that aren't true. The typical American thinking is that being more violent than the violent solves violence, and because the war is over it's over, we won, bad guys were stopped, no more problems here. Actually, much of the mess we have today can be traced directly to WWII, and WWII itself was largely due to fallout over WWI, which itself was fought because it was believed that sending people who nothing to do with international politics to kill each other would stop the killing. And of course these killings (along with country borders being redrawn) angered one Adolf Hitler, who used this anger to persuade an entire nation to go kill even more people. But what stopped the fallout of WWII? The Axis were "stopped" but the Axis was only one scourge plaguing the land, and the violence did not stop because WWII ended on paper. After WWII, more people involved with international politics didn't get along because of the way WWII ended, and they sent even more people who had nothing to do with their arguments to go kill each other with the idea it would stop the killing because we were better at killing them than they were at killing us.

 
Last edited:
oldbadger

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Revoltingest said:
I wouldn't think that. But putting up a sign which says "no guns" won't affect the behavior of those with evil intent. There's no deep meaning here....just irony.
Click to expand...

'morning...! :)

Try this for deeper meaning....

1. Can we agree that a % of police officers could easily initiate friendly fire upon innocent bystanders in any firearms incident?
2. Can we agree that these same officers actually did go on firearms and police training courses?
3. Can we agree that many undergraduates have not been on similar courses to the above?
4. Can we agree that if there would be a attack within a university by terrorists all dressed to look like undergrads, that the friendly fire casualties caused by untrained hysterical undergrads wielding firearms could exceed the casualties caused by the terrorists, simply because uni's are big and the undergrads might shoot at any unknown undergrad who holds a gun (or not!)?

What a nightmare scenario........................

Can we agree?
 
Dirty Penguin

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
oldbadger said:
'morning...! :)

Try this for deeper meaning....

1. Can we agree that a % of police officers could easily initiate friendly fire upon innocent bystanders in any firearms incident?
2. Can we agree that these same officers actually did go on firearms and police training courses?
3. Can we agree that many undergraduates have not been on similar courses to the above?
4. Can we agree that if there would be a attack within a university by terrorists all dressed to look like undergrads, that the friendly fire casualties caused by untrained hysterical undergrads wielding firearms could exceed the casualties caused by the terrorists, simply because uni's are big and the undergrads might shoot at any unknown undergrad who holds a gun (or not!)?

What a nightmare scenario........................

Can we agree?
Click to expand...


Agreed....
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Revoltingest said:
I wouldn't think that. But putting up a sign which says "no guns"
won't affect the behavior of those with evil intent. There's no
deep meaning here....just irony.
Click to expand...

Knowing that they couldn't "blend in" while entering with an obvious firearm wouldn't affect their behaviour?

In any case, I think those signs are more meant to address accidental discharges, customers who might not have evil intent when they enter but end up in an altercation, and self-appointed vigilantes making bad situations worse (e.g. by confronting a robber and turning a mere robbery into a firefight in a crowded restaurant).
 
CMike

CMike

Well-Known Member
Revoltingest said:
I wouldn't think that. But putting up a sign which says "no guns"
won't affect the behavior of those with evil intent. There's no
deep meaning here....just irony.
Click to expand...

We all know how criminals are very rigid in following laws, and even more rigid about following signs. :areyoucra
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
Knowing that they couldn't "blend in" while entering with an obvious firearm wouldn't affect their behaviour?

In any case, I think those signs are more meant to address accidental discharges, customers who might not have evil intent when they enter but end up in an altercation, and self-appointed vigilantes making bad situations worse (e.g. by confronting a robber and turning a mere robbery into a firefight in a crowded restaurant).
Click to expand...
Whatever their reasoning, it's clear that they address only law abiding gun owners.
As I said, no deep meaning here.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Revoltingest said:
Whatever their reasoning, it's clear that they address only law abiding gun owners.
Click to expand...
That's not true.

These sorts of rules probably wouldn't stop someone who comes into the store intent on shooting it up, but just because someone doesn't enter the store with violent intent doesn't automatically mean they're "law-abiding". They would likely be effective at keeping out people who don't have malicious intent but obtained their weapons illegally, people who are legal gun owners but don't follow safe handling rules, and people whose violent intent only arises once they're in the store (e.g. when a fight gets out of hand), etc.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
That's not true.

These sorts of rules probably wouldn't stop someone who comes into the store intent on shooting it up, but just because someone doesn't enter the store with violent intent doesn't automatically mean they're "law-abiding". They would likely be effective at keeping out people who don't have malicious intent but obtained their weapons illegally, people who are legal gun owners but don't follow safe handling rules, and people whose violent intent only arises once they're in the store (e.g. when a fight gets out of hand), etc.
Click to expand...
Despite your disagreement, I think we agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top