Yet another ridiculous comment on rape by a politician - say it ain't so!

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I do carry some wicked groundskeeping tools, especially a customized machete. (Mine is very very sharp.)
Let the living impaired beware!

I've always said it's criminal to have a dull knife. Is it custom made, or did you modify a factory model?

 

[Revoltingest]

I've always said it's criminal to have a dull knife. Is it custom made, or did you modify a factory model?

Modified factory junk.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Modified factory junk.

Modified in what ways if you don't mind satisfying a blade lover's curiousity?

 

[Alceste]

There is a shared trait in that all are intended to be useful in the rare case of some adverse event.
In my truck, I carry a handgun, 2 fire extinguishers, a first aid kit, tire chains, tools, a spare tire,
chocolate, bacon, spare clothing, steel toe shoes, gloves etc. Some of us prepare for bad times
more than others, & the handgun is just part of my kit.

Right now I have a washboard, a washtub bass, a feather boa, two fabulous dresses and a pair of heels in the trunk. I'm prepared for the good times!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

First, your comparison is faulty since most college parties happen off campus, where CCW is legal! And so far, we haven't had any Wild West shoot outs because of that.

The location of most college parties is irrelevant since there are indeed parties on campus, and we are discussing what the on-campus policy should be. And Wild West-style shootouts do indeed occur at off campus parties where concealed carry is legal, this occurred at a bar near the U. of Toledo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2uAQDGWJzE

It's worth considering whether the likelihood of such a shootout on a campus would increase or decrease if campuses allowed concealed carry. Since the likelihood approaches zero for most college campuses, I don't think changing their concealed carry policies can have much effect other than to increase risks.

Second, 30 campuses in Utah, along with some in Colorado and Virginia allow CCW, and have allowed it as far back as 1995 for some cases. Last I checked, none of those campuses represented the Wild West either.

Of course they don't literally represent the Wild West--especially not in Utah, where there is far less alcohol use on college campuses. The question is, does the policy increase, reduce, or have no measurable effect on risk? Many universities (such as Rice) are in much tougher neighborhoods than Mormon country, do not allow concealed carry on campus, and to my knowledge have never had a shooting on campus. So that's the baseline for comparison.

Third, before you make any more ludicrous comparisons based on nothing but knee jerk reactions, at least familiarize yourself with the counter arguments first:
Common Arguments Against Campus Carry

Okay. It wasn't a knee-jerk reaction, since I familiarized myself with the arguments when Students for Concealed Carry campaigned for it on my college campus after the Va. Tech massacre. 90% of Americans disagree with it, but I listened to them and I'll read your link, too. I hope you'll read mine: http://www.iaclea.org/visitors/PDFs/ConcealedWeaponsStatement_Aug2008.pdf

 

[Apex]

The location of most college parties is irrelevant since there are indeed parties on campus, and we are discussing what the on-campus policy should be. And Wild West-style shootouts do indeed occur at off campus parties where concealed carry is legal, this occurred at a bar near the U. of Toledo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2uAQDGWJzE

You said party, that is a bar. And I believe it is already illegal to carry a firearm while drinking. So it is probably a safe bet those people in that video were already breaking the law, what makes you think adding another law would have changed anything?

It's worth considering whether the likelihood of such a shootout on a campus would increase or decrease if campuses allowed concealed carry. Since the likelihood approaches zero for most college campuses, I don't think changing their concealed carry policies can have much effect other than to increase risks.

Of course they don't literally represent the Wild West--especially not in Utah, where there is far less alcohol use on college campuses. The question is, does the policy increase, reduce, or have no measurable effect on risk? Many universities (such as Rice) are in much tougher neighborhoods than Mormon country, do not allow concealed carry on campus, and to my knowledge have never had a shooting on campus. So that's the baseline for comparison.

Okay. It wasn't a knee-jerk reaction, since I familiarized myself with the arguments when Students for Concealed Carry campaigned for it on my college campus after the Va. Tech massacre. 90% of Americans disagree with it, but I listened to them and I'll read your link, too. I hope you'll read mine: http://www.iaclea.org/visitors/PDFs/ConcealedWeaponsStatement_Aug2008.pdf

It sounds like you think if CCW were allowed on campus suddenly every other student would be carrying. It is a very small percentage of the US who have a CCW. And it is probably smaller by an order of magnitude in college aged students. If CCW were allowed on campus, the only thing that would change is the few students who are allowed to carry in every other public place would be allowed to carry on public campuses.

 

[Revoltingest]

You said party, that is a bar. And I believe it is already illegal to carry a firearm while drinking. So it is probably a safe bet those people in that video were already breaking the law, what makes you think adding another law would have changed anything?

There is an added risk if it turns out more students would start carrying. Teens & early 20 somethings have worse judgement &
self control than they will later in life. And their environment encourages irresponsible behavior. Were students to start carrying,
I'd want more extensive training than is currently required.

 

[Father Heathen]

The location of most college parties is irrelevant since there are indeed parties on campus, and we are discussing what the on-campus policy should be. And Wild West-style shootouts do indeed occur at off campus parties where concealed carry is legal, this occurred at a bar near the U. of Toledo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2uAQDGWJzE

The video description mentions "gang bangers" not college students. I just don't see that demographic being serious about education, investing massive amounts of time and money into schooling just to jeopardize it with their hippy hoppy homeboy shenanigans.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Of course you don't. They are generally readily available in most public places thanks to safety regulations.

Perhaps they should put guns on the wall next to fire extinguishers for emergency use.

 

[Apex]

There is an added risk if it turns out more students would start carrying. Teens & early 20 somethings have worse judgement &
self control than they will later in life. And their environment encourages irresponsible behavior. Were students to start carrying,
I'd want more extensive training than is currently required.

Being a college student as little as two years ago I highly doubt making CCW legal on public campuses would cause any more students to get their CCW than those who already have it, or will get it. IMO, the only ones who would take advantage of it would be the ones who already have their CCW. Also, since the minimum age is 21 for CCW in the majority of states that would further reduce the number of students who would even be eligible to apply for a CCW.

But I never have a problem with more training either.

 

[Apex]

Perhaps they should put guns on the wall next to fire extinguishers for emergency use.

Do you have anything serious to add to the discussion, or do you just want to stick to useless exaggerations?

 

[Revoltingest]

Being a college student as little as two years ago I highly doubt making CCW legal on public campuses would cause any more students to get their CCW than those who already have it, or will get it. IMO, the only ones who would take advantage of it would be the ones who already have their CCW. Also, since the minimum age is 21 for CCW in the majority of states that would further reduce the number of students who would even be eligible to apply for a CCW.
But I never have a problem with more training either.

This is way too much agreement. The mods might get angry.
So....much as I hate to do it.....yer a poopy head!
(It's your turn to mock my mother's army shoes.)

 

[crossfire]

More training for a concealed weapons permit would certainly do much to dispel/answer the fears expressed by the politician in the OP regarding accidents with guns.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

More training for a concealed weapons permit would certainly do much to dispel/answer the fears expressed by the politician in the OP regarding accidents with guns.

I'm not sure if that's true. First, I think that a good many people who cite accidents as a reason to concealed (or any) carry aren't as concerned with accidents as they say. They simply do not think there is any reason for citizens to be carrying (or, for some, to have any firearms). In both sides of the gun control debate, I've found that often certain people will use arguments in support of their views which they don't really care about, and this is one type that is used on the control side. I'm not saying that all of those who oppose concealed carry or support strict gun control are not concerned about accidents- many are. But I believe that even if the accident rate was very, very low, we wouldn't see that many people changing their minds. Second, I think that if lots of people were going through proper training to learn how to retrieve their weapons under duress, fire accurately, and do all the right things so that they could deal with a potentially life-threatening situation in a way which maximized the chances that everyone would end up ok, then we'd hear a chorus of protest against the fact that all these people are learning to kill people and why would we want to take people who want to own lethal weapons and make sure they know how to effectively kill or seriously injure others with them.

It could just be that I spent almost all my life in Massachusetts, which has some of the strictest laws in the US and almost everyone you meet has a distaste (often fear) of guns and those who carry them (other than police). In MA, safety has been used as a sort of backdoor gun control. It is perfectly legal as far as gun laws in MA are concerned to buy most of the weapons (with a license, something pretty much impossible to obtain in some cities) which are legal elsewhere, from glocks to desert eagles. However, safety codes prohibit the sale by any gun store of any firearms which do not conform to extremely strict codes. As a result, there are very few companies which make handguns that are compliant with these codes. The idea that the compliant firearms are safer is ridiculous, and everybody knows it. But it severely restricts the ability for licensed individuals to obtain otherwise legal firearms.

 

[Alceste]

There is an added risk if it turns out more students would start carrying. Teens & early 20 somethings have worse judgement &
self control than they will later in life. And their environment encourages irresponsible behavior. Were students to start carrying,
I'd want more extensive training than is currently required.

They are also under huge amounts of pressure, during a time of life when an underlying mental illness may not yet have manifested, but probably will.

 

[Alceste]

I'm not sure if that's true. First, I think that a good many people who cite accidents as a reason to concealed (or any) carry aren't as concerned with accidents as they say. They simply do not think there is any reason for citizens to be carrying (or, for some, to have any firearms). In both sides of the gun control debate, I've found that often certain people will use arguments in support of their views which they don't really care about, and this is one type that is used on the control side. I'm not saying that all of those who oppose concealed carry or support strict gun control are not concerned about accidents- many are. But I believe that even if the accident rate was very, very low, we wouldn't see that many people changing their minds. Second, I think that if lots of people were going through proper training to learn how to retrieve their weapons under duress, fire accurately, and do all the right things so that they could deal with a potentially life-threatening situation in a way which maximized the chances that everyone would end up ok, then we'd hear a chorus of protest against the fact that all these people are learning to kill people and why would we want to take people who want to own lethal weapons and make sure they know how to effectively kill or seriously injure others with them.

It could just be that I spent almost all my life in Massachusetts, which has some of the strictest laws in the US and almost everyone you meet has a distaste (often fear) of guns and those who carry them (other than police). In MA, safety has been used as a sort of backdoor gun control. It is perfectly legal as far as gun laws in MA are concerned to buy most of the weapons (with a license, something pretty much impossible to obtain in some cities) which are legal elsewhere, from glocks to desert eagles. However, safety codes prohibit the sale by any gun store of any firearms which do not conform to extremely strict codes. As a result, there are very few companies which make handguns that are compliant with these codes. The idea that the compliant firearms are safer is ridiculous, and everybody knows it. But it severely restricts the ability for licensed individuals to obtain otherwise legal firearms.

You speak as though safety concerns and dislike of guns are two separate issues. I dislike handguns because they are dangerous, and because their sole purpose is killing human beings.

In any other western country in the world, you would be seen by most people as a dangerous and unstable person if you felt a need to carry a very dangerous weapon designed for the sole propose of killing human beings. I'm saying that not to insult, but to point out that American gun culture obviously has its own unique norms if such behavior is considered sensible, safe and pragmatic, but they are not universal norms. Otherwise you would expect to see those norms emerge elsewhere. As in any culture clash, it's going to be quite difficult for each culture to understand the other. Pretending reasonable concerns about gun safety and gun violence are hysterical or irrational certainly isn't going to help if your aim is to understand the opposite point of view.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You said party, that is a bar. And I believe it is already illegal to carry a firearm while drinking. So it is probably a safe bet those people in that video were already breaking the law, what makes you think adding another law would have changed anything?

It's a distinction without a difference, if you're going to split hairs I said "alcohol-infused college parties", you said most college parties occur off campus and now you're saying a bar just outside the U. of Toledo's campus doesn't count? Sheesh. Furthermore, if people are allowed to carry concealed guns to a bar, and into a bar, it's easier to drink while carrying without getting caught and more likely people who legally brought their guns into the bar will be tempted to do so.

Speaking of the Wild West, check out this scene ...

Tombstone - YouTube

It sounds like you think if CCW were allowed on campus suddenly every other student would be carrying. It is a very small percentage of the US who have a CCW. And it is probably smaller by an order of magnitude in college aged students. If CCW were allowed on campus, the only thing that would change is the few students who are allowed to carry in every other public place would be allowed to carry on public campuses.

Well first aren't you exaggerating when you say they can carry "in every other public space"? IIRC in many states concealed carry is legal but many public and private places ban guns on their premises, even if you have a permit. Judging by the signs I have seen around town, I suspect gun-owners are accustomed to knowing they can't bring their guns to many places, not just college campuses. Secondly, at best, your argument reduces to saying that allowing CCW on campuses would have no effect--other than making 90% of the stakeholders feel less safe, according to polls; or, perhaps, the increased risk of allowing CCW is too small to measure compared to an already low-risk baseline. I tend to err on the side of "do no harm".

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You speak as though safety concerns and dislike of guns are two separate issues.

That's because they can be and often are. Everyone I know, from gun enthusiasts to ardent control supporters believes that gun safety is a concern. But only a fraction of these dislike guns. I am not sure you understood my point (see below), because I probably wasn't very clear.

I dislike handguns because they are dangerous, and because their sole purpose is killing human beings.

This is patently false. Even guns which are specifically designed for this purpose do not have it as a sole purpose. A katana is designed to kill human beings. But I don't know anybody who owns one who ever expects to use it in this manner. Some collect them, some train with them, some do both, but nobody uses these weapons (designed purely to kill humans) for what they were designed to do. I realize, of course, that this is absolutely not true of many people who own guns. Some carry them with the intent to kill, if necessary, a human being if they are threatened. However, this doesn't change the fact that plenty of guns are designed for hunting, competition, even as collector's items, and all of them can by (and usually are) used for things other than just in case those who carry them feel they need to shoot another human.

In any other western country in the world, you would be seen by most people as a dangerous and unstable person if you felt a need to carry a very dangerous weapon designed for the sole propose of killing human beings

That is not true.

FYI, the Swiss have both a "gun culture" and have resisted attempts to impose greater restrictions:
Swiss Vote to Keep 'a Gun in Every Closet'
"Perhaps the great paradox of peaceful and safety-conscious Switzerland, which hasn't been under military threat since World War II, is its cherished tradition of a gun in every closet. And, as the defeat of a Feb. 13 initiative seeking to tighten the nation's liberal gun law proves, the Swiss are not willing to bid a farewell to arms anytime soon".

in Sweden:

"2 A licence to carry arms is issued to any person who fulfills the following conditions:
a. no objection can be raised against the person for any of the reasons as referred to in art. 8, para. 2;
b. the person plausibly establishes that he needs an arm to protect himself or third parties or objects against a tangible danger;
c. the person has passed an examination attesting to the fact that he is capable of handling an arm and knows the legal provisions regarding the use of arms; the Federal Police and Justice Department lays down examination regulations."

and

"4 The following persons do not need a licence to carry arms:
a. holders of a licence for hunting, game wardens and wild-life wardens for the arms that they carry in the exercise of their activity;
b. persons who participate in events in which arms are carried in reference to historical events;
c. persons who participate in shooting events that take place on a secure area and during which soft air firearms are used, for the carrying of the said arms;
d. foreign security agents who exercise their functions at Swiss airports, on condition that the foreign authority responsible for air security has a general authorization as this is defined under art. 27a."
Switzerland. 1997. ‘Carrying of Arms.’ Federal Law on Arms, Arms Accessories and Ammunitions of 20 June 1997 (Status as on 12 December 2008); Chapter 6. Geneva: Federal Assembly of the Swiss Confederation / Translation for the Small Arms Survey, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies. 20 June.

Finally, and most importantly, the pure number of issued, bought, unregistered, privately owned, stocked, etc., guns in Switzerland present serious problems for international analyses of gun ownership:

"Despite their cultural importance, the number of privately held Swiss firearms is extremely elusive. A recent survey found that 26 per cent (1.95 million) of Swiss own at least one firearm (Gasser, 2006; also see Becker, 2001, p. 14). Published estimates of total firearm ownership vary extraordinarily, ranging from 1.2 million to 12 million...One major area of disagreement is the number of modern military rifles in the hands of former reservists, their heirs, and clients. According to Peter Hug, roughly 100,000 Sturmgewehr 57 and Sturmgewehr 90 automatic and semi-automatic rifles have been released this way (Hug, 2006). Contrasting reports suggest that many more were released in 2004–06 alone (Mutter, 2006; Papacella, 2004). Even greater uncertainty surrounds privately purchased firearms. Hug (2006) estimates this category at some 450,000. Other estimates can be explained only by assuming that there are between one and three million privately acquired guns." Box 2.5 Switzerland: public uncertainty and expert biases

In fact, there are so many unregistered guns in Switzerland that the ratio of unregistered guns to citizens is about one in five. (see here).

In other words, despite the laws which are country wide (rather than state wide) about carrying guns in Switzerland, the numerous loopholes (e.g., carrying to a shooting range, which is something one can always claim to be doing), along with an unbelievable number (compared to just about anywhere in the world other than the US and Yemen) of available registered and unregistered guns, from fully automatic assault rifles to handguns, create a situation in which gun control violence could easily rival that of the U.S.'

"shooting as a sport has a long tradition in Switzerland. Therefore, any person without a criminal record can purchase a weapon as well as ammunition, store it at home and use it for shooting sport.1 All together, an estimated 2.2 million modern weapons are owned by approximately 7.4 million Swiss citizens, with a weapon present in almost 1 in every 3 Swiss households."
("Homicide–Suicide Cases in Switzerland and Their Impact on the Swiss Weapon Law").

I'm saying that not to insult, but to point out that American gun culture obviously has its own unique norms if such behavior is considered sensible, safe and pragmatic, but they are not universal norms.

I agree. The US has no rival in Europe when it comes to violence, and only one (AFAIK) when it comes to the numbers of armed citizens and a gun culture.

Pretending reasonable concerns about gun safety and gun violence are hysterical or irrational certainly isn't going to help if your aim is to understand the opposite point of view.

I did not mean to imply this. I was mainly pointing out that I don't think that requiring high levels of training for anyone who carries would stop people from being concerned. That was it. The reason I think this is primarily because I know that many arguments about gun safety and some laws or codes which concern gun safety are not really about what they pretend to be. The consumer safety codes in Massachusetts are such an example. They are quite obviously not about making guns safer for consumers, because they are not designed to do this but to ensure that if a firearm manufacturing company wants to sell their product in Massachusetts, they will have to design it specifically to be Massachusetts compliant. As this costs a fair amount of money, most manufacturers don't bother, making the consumer safety codes a backdoor gun control policy and not a safety code. Even if one argues that these restrictions have made Massachusetts safer, they have not done so by making the firearms themselves safer for consumers (which is the ostensible point of the codes) but by restricting access. That's not what the codes are supposed to do, but as those who support them don't actually care about the safety features on the products themselves, they are quite content to use these for something else: backdoor gun control.

 

[crossfire]

It could just be that I spent almost all my life in Massachusetts, which has some of the strictest laws in the US and almost everyone you meet has a distaste (often fear) of guns and those who carry them (other than police). In MA, safety has been used as a sort of backdoor gun control. It is perfectly legal as far as gun laws in MA are concerned to buy most of the weapons (with a license, something pretty much impossible to obtain in some cities) which are legal elsewhere, from glocks to desert eagles. However, safety codes prohibit the sale by any gun store of any firearms which do not conform to extremely strict codes. As a result, there are very few companies which make handguns that are compliant with these codes. The idea that the compliant firearms are safer is ridiculous, and everybody knows it. But it severely restricts the ability for licensed individuals to obtain otherwise legal firearms.

Pfft. Sounds more like crony capitalism--manufacturers looking to monopolize a certain market--gone awry. Oops!

 

[Alceste]

Legion, I apologize for not addressing your post point by point, but I'm on a smartphone and it's a pain adding tags.

First off, I am not talking about hunting rifles and guns with other reasonable uses, that stay locked in a cabinet at home, or are collected as a hobby. I'm talking about handguns, which are designed for killing humans, and the desire to hide one on your person and carry it everywhere you go. Surely you might find it odd if a katana collector argued they needed to carry one around with them everywhere in case they are attacked.

Secondly, everybody in Switzerland is in the militia. They don't have a standing army. I'm not opposed to arming whatever citizens you hope will provide for your national defense, police or others who might be able to demonstrate a significant likelihood of imminent danger on the job.

In Canada, we've got piles and piles of guns. They're for getting dinner, and they're locked in a cupboard until you want to go get some dinner. They're not miniaturized for easy concealment and packed around with us everywhere we go, just in case we need to shoot and kill another human being.

These articles may interest you if you want to see some persuasive opposing arguments. There's not much point entering a dialogue if you're convinced the opposition is insincere, driven by secret motives, or ignorant of their own true motives.

Washington Post
Washington Post