Students for Concealed Carry on Campus

[Blentyn chan Celi]

it is not grossly inefective every single handgun in the UK is illegal, there are some 60 million people living here and the problem at the moment is a very small minority try to emulate american gang culture and obtain illegal guns
...

I really don’t see much of a point in pressing the statistics, but you seem to be focusing on the one good year out of ten. I agree that in that year there was a decline, but over all there is a significant backlash.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Concealed Carry

 

[Blentyn chan Celi]

Population size is irrelevant. Unless, that is, you are going to argue that the population of the UK is lower than 30, in which case you have a point.
A far better angle of attack is a cultural difference, but even that is probably not too valid.
A mixture of anecdotes and a irrelevant statistics hardly make your point convincing.

My population point is that there are 5 times more people in the US, thus we can expect to see more violent crimes over here.

As far as the cultural aspect goes, I don’t know that ours is more or less prone to violence, so to claim that we live in an environment that is more susceptible to violence would be unfair.

I’m not sure how the statistical evidence that crime rates in the UK have risen starting in the year that most guns were banned is irrelevant. I was attempting to demonstrate that banning guns is counterproductive. What should I have done differently?

 

[yossarian22]

My population point is that there are 5 times more people in the US, thus we can expect to see more violent crimes over here.

Statistics are never given in rates for that very reason, they are given in percentages. Nobody gives a simple number, that makes it a worthless statistics.
There are a few others, but they are irrelevant.
And culture is all you got, unless you can think of a better variable which causes crime rates to differ. Remember that we must assume uniformity by necessity

I’m not sure how the statistical evidence that crime rates in the UK have risen starting in the year that most guns were banned is irrelevant. I was attempting to demonstrate that banning guns is counterproductive. What should I have done differently?

Correlation is not causation. There are literally dozens of reasons why crime rates could spike. Economic, cyclical, etc.
I would put my money on cyclical personally.

 

[kai]

I really don’t see much of a point in pressing the statistics, but you seem to be focusing on the one good year out of ten. I agree that in that year there was a decline, but over all there is a significant backlash.

Backlash what do you mean by backlash, yes we have gun crime but it is very rare and guns are banned so any involvement with one is illegal, obviously we have criminals and the two go hand in hand

 

[Reverend Rick]

So here's my question: Why do so many so-called "conservatives" feign such a dramatic response to intrusions on gun rights, but in this age of increasing naked grabs of governmental power over our privacy and the security of our lives and families offer not only no resistance, but outward support for, things like warrant less surveillance, laws limiting private sexual morality, the disregard of habeas corpus, the use of torture on political prisoners and the disregard of the separation of Church and state - all of which are also hallmarks of a tyrannical state?

Good questions, way off topic, but good questions none the less.

Conservatives feign such a dramatic response to intrusions on gun right because once you take our weapons, they are gone for good. The family shot gun that was handed down for generations, gone for ever. Any country that banned firearms has never reinstated that law. This is one law that cannot be instituted with a stroke of a pen. Yes the law could change, but enforcement would be our nations biggest challenge to date. Many servicemen and police officers would flat refuse the order to disarm this country.

Why do many Conservatives show outward support for warrantless wire taps? Perhaps because they understand that there never has been a reason to believe that our conversations are private in the first place. With today's technology only a fool would expect that their conversations could not be intercepted by the government or any other private organization. The assumption of privacy is complete ignorance of technology and it's possible abuses. The other issue is security. Most intelligent Republicans who have thought this through realise that they are not giving something up, because they never really had it in the first place. Privacy is an illusion at best. The trade off is that we are able to admit we do what we have always done and will continue to do above or below the law, and if that makes it harder on terrorist attacking us so much the better.

Sexual morality? I'm not even going there in this thread. There are plenty of other threads addressing this issue and I do not want to see this thread derailed further.

habeas corpus? I guess American Citizen rights should be applied to non citizens outside United States soil right? That sounds like United Nations talk to me which I will have none of. We are not one world government and will never be. Anyone who is against the sovernty of this nation is a traitor to this country IMHO.

Torture? Why are you so worried about people if released would kill your whole family the first chance they got. I thought Liberals wanted us to keep out of affairs out side this country? If you have no will to sacrifice a few freedoms and do what is necessarily to obtain information that might save millions of lives and refuse to acknowledge that we are in a war on terror, you are hopeless and part of the problem in this country not the solution. What if you get a president who does not look ahead for trouble? Your positions are very dangerous indeed.

Separation of church and state? You will need to explain that one to me.

[/quote]

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm not a gun control advocate, though I think reasonable restrictions on modern military assault weapons, and who can own firearms is probably a justifiable intrusion on the right to bear arms. And I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on encouraging everyone to carry concealed firearms . . .

I have a question though: the bedrock principle underlying the Second Amendment in almost all of the original arguments and writings in favor of it was the idea that citizens must maintain the right to bear arms to provide a means of exerting power against the force of the state. Several of the authors of the Bill of Rights were following the advice of Aristotle, who suggested that the denial of weaponry was a hallmark of a tyrannical state. In short, the right to bear arms is there for the purpose of allowing citizens to act as terrorists/freedom fighters to overthrow an established government again should it ever stand itself above the law, just as the founders of the country had just finished doing at the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights were drafted. In short, the Second Amendment really has nothing whatsoever to do with shooting criminals (except criminals of the government kind).

So here's my question: Why do so many so-called "conservatives" feign such a dramatic response to intrusions on gun rights, but in this age of increasing naked grabs of governmental power over our privacy and the security of our lives and families offer not only no resistance, but outward support for, things like warrant less surveillance, laws limiting private sexual morality, the disregard of habeas corpus, the use of torture on political prisoners and the disregard of the separation of Church and state - all of which are also hallmarks of a tyrannical state?

Put another way, why bother with gun ownership if you're going to be a spineless coward without the wits or the will to stand up to tyranny - which was the whole point in reserving the right to arms in the first place?

Perhaps it's because the conservatives are the ones being tyrants?

 

[doppelganger]

Conservatives feign such a dramatic response to intrusions on gun right because once you take our weapons, they are gone for good.

The same is true of any rights in a tyrannical state. If you keep the weapons, but don't oppose tyranny, you've missed the point of having the right to bear arms in the first place. And you're a coward.

Why do many Conservatives show outward support for warrantless wire taps? Perhaps because they understand that there never has been a reason to believe that our conversations are private in the first place.

That is sheer idiocy. Private conversations are private under the law. Wiretapping without a warrant IS ILLEGAL, Rick. So they are trying to change all the laws and write in provisions that apply them retroactively to their illegal conduct. Sorry, but when the law forbids illegal searches and seizures and requires a warrant before government can intrude into my private conversations, then the expectation is that the government will abide by the law. That's a naked grab for power, placing government officials above the law - i.e. that is tryanny, and supporting it in the name of the "war on terror" is cowardice. All the gun rights zealots may as well hand over their guns, since they don't have the fortitude to use that right for its intended purpose.

The trade off is that we are able to admit we do what we have always done and will continue to do above or below the law, and if that makes it harder on terrorist attacking us so much the better.

The purpose of gun rights laws is so that citizens can become insurgents should the need arise. Without privacy of communications and the ability to organize, or the spine to stand up to tyranny, your gun rights are pretty much useless for any purpose other than stroking your ego.

Sexual morality? I'm not even going there in this thread. There are plenty of other threads addressing this issue and I do not want to see this thread derailed further.

Private conduct that is none of the government's business, Rick. Not just sexual morality - legislating private conduct and intruding on private and family affairs. It's tyranny and supporting it is cowardice.

habeas corpus? I guess American Citizen rights should be applied to non citizens outside United States soil right? That sounds like United Nations talk to me which I will have none of. We are not one world government and will never be. Anyone who is against the sovernty of this nation is a traitor to this country IMHO.

That's an idiotic straw man. The military commission act enables the government to declare U.S. citizens on U.S. soil to be "enemy combatants" and hold them indefinitely without formal charges, trials or habeas corpus. That could include you or me. All that needs happen is some pencil pusher with a grudge get you labeled in the computer system as either a "domestic terrorist" or an "enemy combatant" and since there is no habeas corpus, proving you have done anything wrong is completely irrelevant. You've let your fear cloud your judgment, Rick.

Torture? Why are you so worried about people if released would kill your whole family the first chance they got.

Really, which trial determined that about any of the people who were tortured? Don't be silly, Rick. This is a perfect example of how cowardice of so-called "conservatives" plays right into the hands of Islamic extremists. Don't be a sucker, Rick.

Separation of church and state? You will need to explain that one to me.

Look at Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan under the Taliban or Pakistan.

 

[Apex]

Everyone, please get back on topic. The topic being students who already have concealed carry permits being allowed to carry on campus. The topic is not about gun control in general, other nations views on the "gun happy US", conservatives being tyrants, having the ability to overthrow the government, etc...

 

[doppelganger]

Everyone, please get back on topic. The topic being students who already have concealed carry permits being allowed to carry on campus. The topic is not about gun control in general, other nations views on the "gun happy US", conservatives being tyrants, having the ability to overthrow the government, etc...

Sorry, Apex. Spineless fear-mongering is such an easy target . . . I'll get back on topic . . .

 

[Reverend Rick]

The same is true of any rights in a tyrannical state. If you keep the weapons, but don't oppose tyranny, you've missed the point of having the right to bear arms in the first place. And you're a coward.

This is your straw man. I don't need to see the point of owning firearms, this is a freedom I have for many reasons not just one. What you are suggesting is we have a moral obligation to overthrow the government and not doing so is cowardice? Your rhetoric is subversive. I personally agree with what our President is doing and he is representing my desires for the correct direction this country is going in.

If you took up arms against out government, I would fight along side the government against you. Now if I truly felt like you do and did nothing, Who would be the coward?

That is sheer idiocy. Private conversations are private under the law. Wiretapping without a warrant IS ILLEGAL, Rick. So they are trying to change all the laws and write in provisions that apply them retroactively to their illegal conduct. Sorry, but when the law forbids illegal searches and seizures and requires a warrant before government can intrude into my private conversations, then the expectation is that the government will abide by the law. That's a naked grab for power, placing government officials above the law - i.e. that is tryanny, and supporting it in the name of the "war on terror" is cowardice. All the gun rights zealots may as well hand over their guns, since they don't have the fortitude to use that right for its intended purpose.

Once again I stand behind the statement, privacy is an illusion and you are naive to think otherwise.

The purpose of gun rights laws is so that citizens can become insurgents should the need arise. Without privacy of communications and the ability to organize, or the spine to stand up to tyranny, your gun rights are pretty much useless for any purpose other than stroking your ego.

Keep proping up your straw man, if you believe this, why have you not taken up arms against the government?

Private conduct that is none of the government's business, Rick. Not just sexual morality - legislating private conduct and intruding on private and family affairs. It's tyranny and supporting it is cowardice.

By your own definition, you are the coward as well as a hypocrite.

That's an idiotic straw man. The military commission act enables the government to declare U.S. citizens on U.S. soil to be "enemy combatants" and hold them indefinitely without formal charges, trials or habeas corpus. That could include you or me. All that needs happen is some pencil pusher with a grudge get you labeled in the computer system as either a "domestic terrorist" or an "enemy combatant" and since there is no habeas corpus, proving you have done anything wrong is completely irrelevant. You've let your fear cloud your judgment, Rick.

I'm not scared of the government, are you? Although if I was talking about taking up arms against the government like you are, I could see your concern with this issue.

Really, which trial determined that about any of the people who were tortured? Don't be silly, Rick. This is a perfect example of how cowardice of so-called "conservatives" plays right into the hands of Islamic extremists. Don't be a sucker, Rick.

Oh, I'm not. I am voting for a president who will protect me, not help the terrorists communicate with each other. When a nuclear bomb goes off in this country, it will be you who was the sucker for believing that the enemy combatants should not be lined up and shot instead of coddled and represented by people like yourself in our courts.

Look at Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan under the Taliban or Pakistan.

If I was to take your position, we should not be looking at them right?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

***MOD ADVISORY***

Please refrain from personal comments.

Thanks,
A_E

 

[doppelganger]

Don't hate Americans for their freedoms, Rick. If you do that, and you try to use terror to scare them into giving up those freedoms, then that makes you a ___________.

As for my position on "concealed carry" on campuses, why are crazy people who want to go on shooting sprees on college campuses going to react rationally to the possibility of getting shot if someone is packing?

 

[Wandered Off]

As for my position on "concealed carry" on campuses, why are crazy people who want to go on shooting sprees on college campuses going to react rationally to the possibility of getting shot if someone is packing?

It's not about how crazy people react. It's about how those attacked react.

 

[doppelganger]

It's not about how crazy people react. It's about how those attacked react.

So it's a question of whether it's better to take a defensive response and get out of the way or open up a small arms firefight on a college campus?

 

[Wandered Off]

Pretty much. Although those not armed would take the defensive actions anyway.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So it's a question of whether it's better to take a defensive response and get out of the way or open up a small arms firefight on a college campus?

Both options are bad. Personally, I'd rather have a gun myself than be defenseless in this case, but when I go to school I leave my gun at home. Guns on campus is a lose-lose situation.

Some assmuptions..

1) The attacker doesn't care who he/she kills, so firing a weapon for them is nothing, unintentional kills and injuries are the same as intentional

2) If anyone is carrying who isn't trained (like a police officer), chances are more innocent people will get hurt in a firefight. By "innocent" I mean people who don't have guns. Unintentional kills are much worse than intentional.

3) More guns in a firefight means more unintentional kills and injuries.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There is just something profane about having a gun in a library.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Don't hate Americans for their freedoms, Rick. If you do that, and you try to use terror to scare them into giving up those freedoms, then that makes you a ___________.

As for my position on "concealed carry" on campuses, why are crazy people who want to go on shooting sprees on college campuses going to react rationally to the possibility of getting shot if someone is packing?

OK dopp, first we got off topic, I guess the MOD missed that one, next we have been fast and loose with the name calling. I am glad to see you address the OP finally.

Because they might not be stupid and crazy. You only see things one dimensional. I don't see these crazy people shooting up the police headquarters and I believe that places that are "gun free" entice shooters to go there thus making our campus a target for the crazies.

I don't want any bullets flying around our campus, but if they are going to start flying, I would prefer to see some of the bullets flying in the crazy person's direction as well.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Because they might not be stupid and crazy. You only see things one dimensional. I don't see these crazy people shooting up the police headquarters and I believe that places that are "gun free" entice shooters to go there thus making our campus a target for the crazies.

I don't want any bullets flying around our campus, but if they are going to start flying, I would prefer to see some of the bullets flying in the crazy person's direction as well.

My campus is not gun free. We have a very visible police force at TCU, all of them armed. They also are quite mobile and can be anywhere on campus in force in a matter of minutes (maybe seconds...). In any bullets are flying here, TCU police will be shooting too, which is what I would rather have than college students.