Guns on campus. What do you think?

[Revoltingest]

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

It seems you have a premise that I shouldn't interfere with their right to restrict my
right of self defense. Moreover, the right of self defense is no mere preference.
And if a university wants to corral a large number of defenseless people, it owes those
people security against a mass murderer shooting them.

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

I would limit their freedom to limit my freedom without ensuring my security.

You ask a lot of questions. My turn:
The government limits my freedom to turn away tenants who are black, gay, or have children....is it wrong to limit my freedom in this area?

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

I presume then you allow that competing rights must be balanced,
& that people will differ on where the line is drawn?

Note:
Being quiet in a library serves a good purpose & doesn't threaten my safety.
It's a good compromise. Your other examples are similar in this respect.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It seems you have a premise that I shouldn't interfere with their right to restrict my
right of self defense.

My premise is that a private college, like any property owner, has property rights that allow it to restrict what happens on its property, subject only to justifiable limits.

Moreover, the right of self defense is no mere preference.

You were the one who described your position as a preference.

And your decision to go enrol at a particular school or go onto its campus is most certainly a preference.

And if a university wants to corral a large number of defenseless people, it owes those
people security against a mass murderer shooting them.

If the "defenseless people" don't have a problem with the arrangement, who are you to say that they're wrong? Why do you have such a problem with their self-direction of their own lives?

I would limit their freedom to limit my freedom without ensuring my security.

What freedoms are you actually entitled to on someone else's property? To what extent are their rights secondary to yours?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I presume then that you allow that competing rights must be
balanced, & that people will differ on where the line is drawn?

That depends what you mean.

If we leave people (and schools) to their own devices, presumably some schools will allow firearms and others won't (and some might allow firearms with restrictions), and schools will have varying levels of security. Prospective students will balance these factors along with others like tuition cost and the quality of the program at each school, and each person will make the choice that works best for them.

In terms of actual laws, when different people can reasonably come to different positions on where the legal requirement line should be drawn, the reasonable thing is to craft a law that allows the full range of reasonable positions. In this case, this would mean allowing each institution to implement the firearm restrictions (or lack thereof) that works best for them.

 

[Revoltingest]

If we leave people (and schools) to their own devices, presumably some schools will allow firearms and others won't (and some might allow firearms with restrictions), and schools will have varying levels of security. Prospective students will balance these factors along with others like tuition cost and the quality of the program at each school, and each person will make the choice that works best for them.

In terms of actual laws, when different people can reasonably come to different positions on where the legal requirement line should be drawn, the reasonable thing is to craft a law that allows the full range of reasonable positions. In this case, this would mean allowing each institution to implement the firearm restrictions (or lack thereof) that works best for them.

No fundamental disagreement here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see you edited your post after I responded.

Note:
Being quiet in a library serves a good purpose & doesn't threaten my safety.
It's a good compromise. Your other examples are similar in this respect.

Does prohibiting firearms threaten your safety? If so, how do you know?

You keep alluding to positions that would need to be supported by evidence to be valid, but so far you haven't provided any.

 

[Revoltingest]

You were the one who described your position as a preference.

I objected to your adding the prefix "mere" to my preference.

If the "defenseless people" don't have a problem with the arrangement, who are you to say that they're wrong? Why do you have such a problem with their self-direction of their own lives?

I don't say they're wrong. But I prefer a different public policy, ie, if you deprive someone
of the ability of self defense, then you incur the obligation to provide security.

What freedoms are you actually entitled to on someone else's property? To what extent are their rights secondary to yours?

List them all? Boy, you're demanding.
Let's address on right one doesn't give up when on another's property:
The right against sexual assault.
Under the law, this right cannot be waived.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

I found this article informative.

Guns on Campus: Overview

While i understand the need to be able to protect ourselves. i would like to know that the students on campus that have guns have some sort of certificate of gun safety.

Quote from the attached article.

Legislation passed in Mississippi in 2011 creates an exception to allow concealed carry on college campuses for those who have taken a voluntary course on safe handling and use of firearms by a certified instructor.

 

[Revoltingest]

I see you edited your post after I responded.

I was hoping you were slower.

Does prohibiting firearms threaten your safety? If so, how do you know?

Because if a perp came after me with a gun, I couldn't respond in kind.

You keep alluding to positions that would need to be supported by evidence to be valid, but so far you haven't provided any.

I note the paucity of your evidence too.

 

[Revoltingest]

I see you edited your post after I responded.

I was hoping you were slower.

Does prohibiting firearms threaten your safety? If so, how do you know?

Because if a perp came after me with a gun, I couldn't respond in kind.
I suppose I could throw a book at him though.
Do universities still use books?
Or would I have to use a Kindle?

You keep alluding to positions that would need to be supported by evidence to be valid, but so far you haven't provided any.

I note the paucity of your evidence too.
If you want to keep carping about mine, then it's time to step up with your own.

 

[Sees]

There is plenty of evidence the presence of firearms deters crime. Much, much evidence. I'm betting people on here with counter-terroism training are rare. Thousands of incidents are catalogued and all data shows the same thing.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I found this article informative.

Guns on Campus: Overview

While i understand the need to be able to protect ourselves. i would like to know that the students on campus that have guns have some sort of certificate of gun safety.

Quote from the attached article.

Thanks JM for contributing this.....

 

[psychoslice]

How ridiculers, as we say here in Australia, "it had to be America".

 

[Revoltingest]

How ridiculers, as we say here in Australia, "it had to be America".

As we say here....
Look out! A dingo is stealing yer baybee!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because if a perp came after me with a gun, I couldn't respond in kind.

That's only half the equation. If the people around you are able to more easily carry guns, does this increase or decrease the odds that someone could come after you with a gun in the first place?

I note the paucity of your evidence too.

Again: the burden of proof is yours. When there's no clear evidence either way, a society that values freedom sides against the imposition of restrictive laws.

 

[psychoslice]

As we say here....
Look out! A dingo is stealing yer baybee!

He he, actually Lindy Chamberlin was once a member of my church, she was a very nice person, its a pity what the media did to her, our dingo's have since kill a little boy and injured many others, there not a cute little dog to play around with, just thought I would share that.

 

[esmith]

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.


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

So, it appears that you are arguing that a private institution should be free to conduct their affairs as they see fit? Then are you also advocating that a private business that is open to the public are free to conduct their business as they see fit? Seems like I have read posts that you and others have been arguing against that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, it appears that you are arguing that a private institution should be free to conduct their affairs as they see fit? Then are you also advocating that a private business that is open to the public are free to conduct their business as they see fit? Seems like I have read posts that you and others have been arguing against that.

If you're going to respond to my posts, please read all of them:

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.

Edit: also, if you're talking about the threads about the "turn away the gays" bills in Arizona and Kansas, those are largely about denying business owners the right to run their businesses as they see fit by letting their employees overrule business owners' decisions.

 

[Revoltingest]

He he, actually Lindy Chamberlin was once a member of my church, she was a very nice person, its a pity what the media did to her, our dingo's have since kill a little boy and injured many others, there not a cute little dog to play around with, just thought I would share that.

Much to my discredit, I did know what bad taste my joke was.
But hey.....I am the revoltingest here!

 

[psychoslice]

Much to my discredit, I did know what bad taste my joke was.
But hey.....I am the revoltingest here!

Yes you are right, we must live up to our name lol.