Guns on campus. What do you think?

[esmith]

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



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.

No I was referring to your comment

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin
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.

and thinking about Notre Dame, Hobby Lobby, and Sisters of the Poor that this administration requires them to provide birth control. Are they not "private institutions that should be free to conduct their affairs as they see fit"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No I was referring to your comment
and thinking about Notre Dame, Hobby Lobby, and Sisters of the Poor that this administration requires them to provide birth control. Are they not "private institutions that should be free to conduct their affairs as they see fit"?

This is the second time that you've chopped my quote off mid-sentence. I'm close to thinking that you're misrepresenting me deliberately.

In the case of health insurance, there is a compelling justification: the need for proper health insurance for the citizens of the country.

That being said, I've maintained all along that it would be much better to have a single-payer system where the government provides health insurance directly and no employer has to provide health insurance to their employees.

 

[Assad91]

I'm not comfortable with any one caring a tool that could easily end another's life. People get emotional over anything.

 

[Revoltingest]

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?

As we've seen on numerous threads about this, there are far more legit uses of guns in
self defense than non-legit, eg, Gary Kleck's work. I presume you've read those threads,
seen the links to studies I've presented, & see no need to post them over & over again.

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.

You give me a burden of evidence, but you don't have one?
I'm just giving my values, opinions & reasons.
You aren't even giving me that....just demands for evidence.
Not enuf? Meh.
Are you just trying to "win" a debate under a Partial-Penguins-Rules technicality?
Well, you should've said so!
I'd be glad to just give you the prize & be done with it.
Here you go!

An acceptance speech is not necessary.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As we've seen on numerous threads about this, there are far more legit uses of guns in
self defense than non-legit, eg, Gary Kleck's work. I presume you've read those threads,
seen the links to studies I've presented, & see no need to post them over & over again.

This doesn't speak to the point I raised, though: the fewer guns in a place, the lower the potential that defensive gun use might be required.

And even taking Kleck's very flawed studies as given, surely you recognize that no national average is going to capture the variation that occurs from place to place and group to group, right? Why not allow each private college to pick the approach that works best for them?

You give me a burden of evidence, but you don't have one?
I'm just giving my values, opinions & reasons.
You aren't even giving me that....just demands for evidence.
Not enuf? Meh.

Not enough? Try none at all.

You're the one arguing for more restrictive laws. You're the one arguing that private colleges should be forced to either allow guns or pay for more security (BTW: why "more" security and not just security to a certain standard?), so yes, the burden of proof is yours.

In a free society, it's limitations on freedoms, not the freedoms themselves, that have to be justified. If a college wants to paint its buildings pink, or require their students to wear big floppy hats, or prohibit guns from their campus, then they have that right until someone can come up with compelling reasons why they shouldn't.

 

[Revoltingest]

And even taking Kleck's very flawed studies as given, surely you recognize that no national average is going to capture the variation that occurs from place to place and group to group, right? Why not allow each private college to pick the approach that works best for them?
Not enough? Try none at all.
You're the one arguing for more restrictive laws. You're the one arguing that private colleges should be forced to either allow guns or pay for more security (BTW: why "more" security and not just security to a certain standard?), so yes, the burden of proof is yours.
In a free society, it's limitations on freedoms, not the freedoms themselves, that have to be justified. If a college wants to paint its buildings pink, or require their students to wear big floppy hats, or prohibit guns from their campus, then they have that right until someone can come up with compelling reasons why they shouldn't.

I related my values, opinions & reasons.
You have your objections to them.
I've given evidence in numerous other threads.
I see no need to repeat upon command.
And you're giving none whatsoever here.
You're not really discussing anything of interest.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I related my values, opinions & reasons.
You have your objections to them.
I've given evidence in numerous other threads.
I see no need to repeat upon command.

You've done no such thing. The relevant questions we would have to answer before we could justifiably impose the laws you're advocating on schools are:

- how safe is "safe enough" for a college?
- what is the quantified effect on the safety of a college when it either allows or bans the carrying of firearms?
- what sort of private security would be required to make a campus where carry is prohibited as safe as a campus where carry is allowed?

I've never seen you post anything in any thread that speaks to any of these issues. Heck, so far, you haven't even given anything to suggest that banning firearms from a campus would make it less safe.

And you're giving none whatsoever here.

That's right. It's up to you to justify why a college shouldn't be free to conduct itself as it sees fit. 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.

You're not really discussing anything of interest.

Funny - when I find a discussion uninteresting, I usually stop participating. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

 

[Revoltingest]

You've done no such thing.

That's all ya got...mere gainsaying?
Slacking off cuz you already got the trophy I bet.

Edit:
Oh, rats...I'm getting all b****y now.
Must stop.
Here's a treat for everyone I've disappointed in this thread....

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

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.

That makes absolutely no since what-so-ever. If it were true, then we would expect America, where lots of people have guns, to have a low crime rate. But we don't. We do see though in places like Canada and Norway there are guns, but little crime. Japan has very few guns, and very little crime.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

You made me text purple!
Anyway, tis not about solving the problem, but rather minimizing it (IMO).

That makes absolutely no since what-so-ever. If it were true, then we would expect America, where lots of people have guns, to have a low crime rate. But we don't. We do see though in places like Canada and Norway there are guns, but little crime. Japan has very few guns, and very little crime.

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.

 

[metis]

No I was referring to your comment
and thinking about Notre Dame, Hobby Lobby, and Sisters of the Poor that this administration requires them to provide birth control. Are they not "private institutions that should be free to conduct their affairs as they see fit"?

That was already resolved so they don't have to do it. Instead, the insurance companies will directly supply birth control to any employees within organizations like the above who want it. To me, I don't think any organization has a right to tell their employees how they must conduct their private life outside that organization.

 

[esmith]

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.


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.


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?


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

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:



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.

No I was referring to your comment
and thinking about Notre Dame, Hobby Lobby, and Sisters of the Poor that this administration requires them to provide birth control. Are they not "private institutions that should be free to conduct their affairs as they see fit"?

This is the second time that you've chopped my quote off mid-sentence. I'm close to thinking that you're misrepresenting me deliberately.

In the case of health insurance, there is a compelling justification: the need for proper health insurance for the citizens of the country.

That being said, I've maintained all along that it would be much better to have a single-payer system where the government provides health insurance directly and no employer has to provide health insurance to their employees.

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. The point of my contention was:

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.

Therefor how am I misrepresenting you when I ask a direct question about your statement? 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. 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. 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.

 

[esmith]

That was already resolved so they don't have to do it. Instead, the insurance companies will directly supply birth control to any employees within organizations like the above who want it. To me, I don't think any organization has a right to tell their employees how they must conduct their private life outside that organization.

Again you are off point over the argument that 9-10ths_Penguin was making that

" 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.

It has nothing to do with your point, only the point that on one hand an argument for rights of property owners yet sees no problem with a government mandating a private property owner do something that they disagree with. Do you not see the fallacy of that argument?

 

[metis]

It has nothing to do with your point, only the point that on one hand an argument for rights of property owners yet sees no problem with a government mandating a private property owner do something that they disagree with. Do you not see the fallacy of that argument?

It's simply not that cut-and-dry, and the SCOTUS has reinforced that it isn't. If I'm selling whatever to the public, there's a fine line between what might be allowed and what might not be-- it's simply not all one-sided.

I am only one side of the formula, but there's the other side-- the buying public. If I can sell anything to anyone I only choose to sell to, then that opens the door to all sorts of discriminatory acts that can be very harmful to society and/or individuals or groups within the society. And if there's a doubt that you might have, the SCOTUS pretty much had resolved this many decades ago.

For example, your home and my home are right next to each other, but I decide to use all of my property as a huge garbage dump. Is that OK with you? It shouldn't be because there's the general recognition that my private property isn't in some sort of vacuum.

If I own a party store, can I sell heroin to drug addicts or children? Hey, it's my "private property"!

Like I said about, it's sort of a fine line, but even that "fine line" has to be at least somewhat flexible.

 

[esmith]

It's simply not that cut-and-dry, and the SCOTUS has reinforced that it isn't. If I'm selling whatever to the public, there's a fine line between what might be allowed and what might not be-- it's simply not all one-sided.

I am only one side of the formula, but there's the other side-- the buying public. If I can sell anything to anyone I only choose to sell to, then that opens the door to all sorts of discriminatory acts that can be very harmful to society and/or individuals or groups within the society. And if there's a doubt that you might have, the SCOTUS pretty much had resolved this many decades ago.

For example, your home and my home are right next to each other, but I decide to use all of my property as a huge garbage dump. Is that OK with you? It shouldn't be because there's the general recognition that my private property isn't in some sort of vacuum.

If I own a party store, can I sell heroin to drug addicts or children? Hey, it's my "private property"!

Like I said about, it's sort of a fine line, but even that "fine line" has to be at least somewhat flexible.

You seem to be using extreme situations to bolster your point. In you point below it would seem to be a more advantageous to allow the free market determine if they want to do business with said entity vice more laws.

If I can sell anything to anyone I only choose to sell to, then that opens the door to all sorts of discriminatory acts that can be very harmful to society and/or individuals or groups within the society.

And what the SCOTUS determines is not the final word. Their decisions can always be overturned by the action of a different SCOTUS or by amending the Constitution. Also these justices are human with human failings, they are not perfect and can be found wanting. For your edification suggest you read the following link

HowStuffWorks "10 Overturned Supreme Court Cases"

 

[Dirty Penguin]

And what the SCOTUS determines is not the final word. Their decisions can always be overturned by the action of a different SCOTUS or by amending the Constitution. Also these justices are human with human failings, they are not perfect and can be found wanting. For your edification suggest you read the following link
http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases.htm

I agree but we can't ponder on what might or might not happen one day in the near or far future. SCOTUS got the last word so at present SCOTUS is the last word. We can only go by existing law and their rulings.

 

[metis]

You seem to be using extreme situations to bolster your point. In you point below it would seem to be a more advantageous to allow the free market determine if they want to do business with said entity vice more laws.
And what the SCOTUS determines is not the final word. Their decisions can always be overturned by the action of a different SCOTUS or by amending the Constitution. Also these justices are human with human failings, they are not perfect and can be found wanting. For your edification suggest you read the following link

HowStuffWorks "10 Overturned Supreme Court Cases"

With all due respect, I taught American Government for around 25 years, including a two week unit on the workings of the SCOTUS. This is certainly not to say that I'm always correct, however.

As I stated previously, there's always going to be this "fine line", which is flexible as it probably should be, between the rights of the individual and the rights of society, and either extreme presents rather serious problems. If one just let discrimination take its course, then we'd be slipping right back into the many civil rights problems that were tearing this nation apart decades ago.

BTW, did you by chance see the movie "42"? I saw it last night for the first time, and I'm old enough to remember those "good old days" that really weren't so good, and I really wouldn't want to revisit them with all the prejudices, bigotry, discrimination, riots, lynchings, etc.

 

[esmith]

With all due respect, I taught American Government for around 25 years, including a two week unit on the workings of the SCOTUS. This is certainly not to say that I'm always correct, however.

As I stated previously, there's always going to be this "fine line", which is flexible as it probably should be, between the rights of the individual and the rights of society, and either extreme presents rather serious problems. If one just let discrimination take its course, then we'd be slipping right back into the many civil rights problems that were tearing this nation apart decades ago.

BTW, did you by chance see the movie "42"? I saw it last night for the first time, and I'm old enough to remember those "good old days" that really weren't so good, and I really wouldn't want to revisit them with all the prejudices, bigotry, discrimination, riots, lynchings, etc.

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.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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.

Kansas saw its fair share of these things during this time frame. I'm glad you weren't exposed to it but it was definitely happening there.

 

[esmith]

Kansas saw its fair share of these things during this time frame. I'm glad you weren't exposed to it but it was definitely happening there.

And you know this for a fact?

79.02.04: The Negro Holocaust: Lynching and Race Riots in the United States,1880-1950