Hear Me Out: Should guns be allowed on campus with a permit? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Hear Me Out: Should guns be allowed on campus with a permit?


TBO
03-05-2012, 03:14
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/local_news/hear_me_out/hear-me-out-should-guns-be-allowed-on-campus-with-a-permit

xmanhockey7
03-05-2012, 03:19
Simple answer, yes!

USCgrad
03-05-2012, 03:20
as a college student i have to agree...simple answer??? YES

FL Airedale
03-05-2012, 05:05
As a college employee, I say YES.

cloudbuster
03-05-2012, 09:13
The entire crimnal-protection-zone philosophy has always baffled me. It's not lilke there's some chemical in the air at a post office, a college campus or the statehouse that suddenly makes me more likely to go on a murderous rampage. Likewise, there's nothing in the air at those places that would make an actual murderous psycho mysteriously decide to obey the law.

fuzzy03cls
03-05-2012, 09:26
um, yes.....

collim1
03-05-2012, 09:28
I think so yes. There is a large university in my jurisdiction, and there is not state law against carrying on campus. If you are an employee or student and get caught carrying you will likely be fired or expelled, but no criminal charges can be filed.

Doubtful the university will change its policy for liability reasons.

SPIN2010
03-05-2012, 09:44
Yes.

Hmmm ... is that a book bag or an EDC bag? Better be sure before you search Ms. campus official. :cool:

hallnh727
03-05-2012, 09:47
Coming from someone who graduated last May I say yes.

NEOH212
03-05-2012, 09:53
Absolutely!

Taphius
03-05-2012, 09:58
I like how the against argument uses zero facts pertaining.l to the articls and just brings fear mongering to the table. Claiming colleges as children and youth centers.....

Sent from my Inspire 4G using Tapatalk

slickt0mmy
03-05-2012, 10:06
As a current college student, absolutely! Though it wouldn't affect me much since I don't go to a public university. :frown:

F350
03-05-2012, 10:46
Most universities and colleges here in Colorado allow CCW holders to carry on campus. My wife is the new director of the library at one, she was having trouble with a couple known problem patrons and asked the VP over campus security for a meeting, and he came to her office.

During their meeting guns on campus came up and the VP stated that carry was permitted on campus and there were 26 faculty and staff with CCWs, she looked him in the eye and said "27". She said it didn't seem to bother him in the least.

To date I don't know of any reported problems on campus.

Cream Soda Kid
03-05-2012, 11:16
Yes, I see no difference in carrying whether on a college campus or on the street downtown.

janice6
03-05-2012, 11:35
Yes. Legal CCW permit holders should be allowed to carry on campus.

I am, however, swayed by the authors claims that the students are very immature. In this vein, I think students should not be allowed to drive until they graduate.

Gunnut 45/454
03-05-2012, 13:58
Legally owned and carried weapons should be allowed any where the legal possesing individual wishes to carry them!:supergrin: It's called freedom!:whistling:

RYT 2BER
03-05-2012, 14:22
The comment section of that thing is pretty painful... Must be some POS liberal rag..

poodleplumber
03-05-2012, 14:37
I was struck by the fact that the author of the opinion opposing campus carry promised to examine the facts, then presented nothing except concurring opinions.

Oramac
03-05-2012, 14:43
As I understand it, the bill would only allow you to carry on the outdoor campus. You still could not carry into the buildings, which defeats the entire purpose of the bill in the first place.

Bullwinkle J Moose
03-05-2012, 18:56
I still wonder about the rational that maintains a law-abiding citizen with a legal concealed weapon somehow mysteriously transforms into a maniacal sociopathic homicidal threat to public safety by merely stepping onto the grounds of a college. If something about college property has this effect on people, do we need really to be educating our kids there?

:headscratch:

F350
03-05-2012, 19:04
UPDATE COLORADO---

As noted in separate threads; Colorado Supreme Court just said the legislature did NOT grant the power to prohibit CCW to universities....CCW LEGAL ON ALL CAMPUSES !!!!

Glenn E. Meyer
03-06-2012, 10:15
Yes. Trying to protect yourself against Cho, or the L'ecole Polytechnique kiler with the flying IPAD of death may not work.

saxconnection
03-06-2012, 13:00
I fully agree. It's horrifying especially when a loved one goes to a University, and you find out that at the same time they are going, a girl is raped and murdered - AND THE UNIVERSITY TRIES TO COVER IT UP!!! (June 2007, Eastern Michigan University). It is disconcerting that all I could do was give her some pepper spray and hope for the best. Carry everywhere you can, and fight to get the gun-free zones out of here (save for special circumstances, such as sterile zones of Airports or Court houses). I say give the responsible college kids the means to protect themselves. Another VT may be prevented, or stopped short because of it. Gun-Free zones are a criminal's playground. Give them one less place to play.


Adam

B.Reid
03-06-2012, 13:58
Why shouldn't they? For the most part everyone on a college campus are adults. Criminals don't obey no gun zones anyway.

Foxtrotx1
03-06-2012, 14:15
I'm going to get flamed, but I say Yes with Permit, NO without.

Edited to add: I'm in AZ where we have permit less carry. Idiots with no training worry me.

B.Reid
03-06-2012, 14:22
I'm going to get flamed, but I say Yes with Permit, NO without.

Edited to add: I'm in AZ where we have permit less carry. Idiots with no training worry me.


Why? Has there been a lot of problems with people exercising their rights?

slickt0mmy
03-06-2012, 15:24
I'm going to get flamed, but I say Yes with Permit, NO without.

Edited to add: I'm in AZ where we have permit less carry. Idiots with no training worry me.


And how many problems, exactly, has AZ had with their permitless carry? Is it the wild west down there? Blood running in the streets, perhaps? I'm thinking no. And why would a college campus be any different?

Brian Lee
03-06-2012, 16:24
Of course they should be allowed to carry WITH a permit. Permit holders are extremely unlikely to commit crimes - even less likely than off-duty cops are, so why wouldn't you want such people around? They are the ones who could have stopped some of our worst shooting incidents BEFORE the perps had the chance to kill quite so many.

Banning carry on campus is already a proven failure with a lot of dead bodies to show for it.

TexasFats
03-06-2012, 16:31
As an Associate Professor of Finance and Economics, I say yes. In Texas, it is legal outside but illegal in a "building or portion thereof", plus some sporting and other events. I would feel better if I had something other than a can of pepper spray and the "dry-erase marker of death" to protect my students and myself from the criminal types.

Also, the students here who favor CC on campus are pretty level-headed. The ones who don't favor it are leftist types who probably couldn't pour "you-know-what" out of a boot if directions were nailed to the heel. Ditto for most of my collegues on faculty.

Brian Lee
03-06-2012, 16:37
And how many problems, exactly, has AZ had with their permitless carry? Is it the wild west down there? Blood running in the streets, perhaps? I'm thinking no. And why would a college campus be any different?

I'm in AZ too. No it has not been the bloodbath some predicted, but what crimes of passion we do have - shooting ones neighbor over dog poop, for example (and I'm not including the real criminals & gangsters, so as to stay focused on regular citizens here) - have tended to be non-permit holders in the vast majority of cases. I also happen to think the permit process in AZ is so incredibly easy that I cannot really see much excuse for not going through it. AND I continue to be amazed at how many people here do not seem to know AZ laws concerning when they can and cannot shoot without landing themselves in jail for several years, if not life. Also can't believe how many have never fired their own gun before.

Not long ago I was explaining to a guy I know that he cannot just open his porch window and shoot people standing in his driveway - and he didn't believe me!! He caries without a permit now too.

We have quite a few idiots here who do not realize that their own ignorance of the law is putting them in more danger than the crook they might need to shoot.:faint:

slickt0mmy
03-06-2012, 17:09
I'm in AZ too. No it has not been the bloodbath some predicted, but what crimes of passion we do have - shooting ones neighbor over dog poop, for example (and I'm not including the real criminals & gangsters, so as to stay focused on regular citizens here) - have tended to be non-permit holders in the vast majority of cases. I also happen to think the permit process in AZ is so incredibly easy that I cannot really see much excuse for not going through it. AND I continue to be amazed at how many people here do not seem to know AZ laws concerning when they can and cannot shoot without landing themselves in jail for several years, if not life. Also can't believe how many have never fired their own gun before.

Not long ago I was explaining to a guy I know that he cannot just open his porch window and shoot people standing in his driveway - and he didn't believe me!! He caries without a permit now too.

We have quite a few idiots here who do not realize that their own ignorance of the law is putting them in more danger than the crook they might need to shoot.:faint:

I must have missed the part of the second amendment where it said "shall not be infringed......provided they have proper training."

I agree that there are idiots out there that don't know the law. I also agree that training is EXTREMELY valuable and any person who owns/carries a firearm should be adequately trained in the use of their weapon and the laws surrounding it. But do I think the government should have any power to force people to get that training? Absolutely not.

Foxtrotx1
03-06-2012, 17:13
You know, the second amendment is powerful, but the SCOTUS has ruled that stetes may place reasonable restrictions upon it.

If shall not be infringed applies, why can't people who are mentally ill or use pot buy guns?

I personally am tired of hearing about all these idiots who don't know what a holster is or the basic rules of firearms safety. That's why I like classes, at least expose them to it.

Flame suit is on, have at it.

slickt0mmy
03-06-2012, 17:30
You know, the second amendment is powerful, but the SCOTUS has ruled that stetes may place reasonable restrictions upon it.

If shall not be infringed applies, why can't people who are mentally ill or use pot buy guns?

I personally am tired of hearing about all these idiots who don't know what a holster is or the basic rules of firearms safety. That's why I like classes, at least expose them to it.

Flame suit is on, have at it.

You're right. The SCOTUS does say that reasonable restrictions can be placed on our rights. I, however, disagree. There's a reason they're called "rights".

Are you saying "shall not be infringed" doesn't apply?

If you're tired of hearing about them, why not offer to train them? Or guide them to another trainer? Why is your first reaction to have the government fix the problem?

Foxtrotx1
03-06-2012, 17:35
You're right. The SCOTUS does say that reasonable restrictions can be placed on our rights. I, however, disagree. There's a reason they're called "rights".

Are you saying "shall not be infringed" doesn't apply?

If you're tired of hearing about them, why not offer to train them? Or guide them to another trainer? Why is your first reaction to have the government fix the problem?

Because sometimes, sometimes, not all the time, we do actually need help from the glue that holds our society together. I can't stand the size of government as much as the next guy, but occasionally they have a good program.

I'm saying "shall not be infringed" has not applied for a long time, yet many staunch supporters of "no restrictions" don't mind that.

Besides, the more people that have accidental discharges in restraunts, homes ect. make the ones of us who know what we are doing look bad. I don't want people making me look bad. If they take classes, they may very well not **** up.

Sam Spade
03-06-2012, 18:20
I must have missed the part of the second amendment where it said "shall not be infringed......provided they have proper training."

Well, there is that "well regulated" part. Original meaning meant "properly ordered and functioning"; a well regulated clock keeping proper time. Hence, a well regulated militia (being the whole body of the people) is well trained and skilled.

slickt0mmy
03-06-2012, 18:33
Well, there is that "well regulated" part. Original meaning meant "properly ordered and functioning"; a well regulated clock keeping proper time. Hence, a well regulated militia (being the whole body of the people) is well trained and skilled.

But where does it say that it is the job of the government to do the regulating? Perhaps the militia should be "self-regulating". And in an effort to not derail the thread any further, this will be my last post on the subject.

Sam Spade
03-06-2012, 18:47
But where does it say that it is the job of the government to do the regulating?

Article I, Section 8. Congress shall have the power...To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,...

Of course if you reject that the militia is the body of the people as a whole, you're fighting with more than one of the Founders.

4thFLPrivate
03-06-2012, 18:57
Because I have to have at least five characters... Yesss.

B.Reid
03-06-2012, 19:16
Because sometimes, sometimes, not all the time, we do actually need help from the glue that holds our society together. I can't stand the size of government as much as the next guy, but occasionally they have a good program.

I'm saying "shall not be infringed" has not applied for a long time, yet many staunch supporters of "no restrictions" don't mind that.

Besides, the more people that have accidental discharges in restraunts, homes ect. make the ones of us who know what we are doing look bad. I don't want people making me look bad. If they take classes, they may very well not **** up.

Just because the Government is acting criminally, doesn't mean we have to accept it. There should be no gun laws.

Misty02
03-06-2012, 19:37
The entire crimnal-protection-zone philosophy has always baffled me. It's not lilke there's some chemical in the air at a post office, a college campus or the statehouse that suddenly makes me more likely to go on a murderous rampage. Likewise, there's nothing in the air at those places that would make an actual murderous psycho mysteriously decide to obey the law.

Iíll continue reading the thread, but this pretty much expresses my sentiments on this matter, and much better than I could.

.

Sam Spade
03-06-2012, 19:38
Just because the Government is acting criminally, doesn't mean we have to accept it. There should be no gun laws.

By all means, provide the defendant with the weapon of his choice. Let him keep it as he wishes; prisons are dangerous places. After all, that's what the Founders intended.

Next chapter, the private stockpiles of sarin and ricin by adjudicated lunatics. :upeyes:

It's now impossible for me to take you seriously.

JK-linux
03-06-2012, 19:54
A permit, is a permit, is a permit. Someone is issued one after having met certain requirements, so either you are trusted or you are not. If you are good to go, I'm not sure why location should have any bearing on whether you can carry. The only exception I could think of is carrying into a prison or something.

larson1122
03-06-2012, 19:56
Absolutely yes. College campuses shouldn't be treated any differently than anywhere else where legal carry is permitted.

Misty02
03-06-2012, 20:03
Yes. Legal CCW permit holders should be allowed to carry on campus.

I am, however, swayed by the authors claims that the students are very immature. In this vein, I think students should not be allowed to drive until they graduate.

There are people in college/universities of all ages. Not that I would want to impose restriction on an otherwise law abiding citizen that is able to carry elsewhere, just a reminder that some adults do go back to school too.

You know, the second amendment is powerful, but the SCOTUS has ruled that stetes may place reasonable restrictions upon it.

If shall not be infringed applies, why can't people who are mentally ill or use pot buy guns?

I personally am tired of hearing about all these idiots who don't know what a holster is or the basic rules of firearms safety. That's why I like classes, at least expose them to it.

Flame suit is on, have at it.

How much training would you feel comfortable with? Iím in Florida; I had to attend a class to get my license. It consisted of 2+ hour of going over the statutes and other valuable information as well as a few shots fired, the main purpose was for the instructor to observe that students handled the weapon safely; in spite that, there are still people who carry without a holster and break the firearm safety rules. Reckless, unsafe individuals donít change just because you force them to sit through a few hour course. Regardless of how much you try, those that are responsible will seek training on their own (whether required or not) those that are irresponsible and reckless will go back to their ways the second they get their certificate.

.

MinnesnowtaWild
03-07-2012, 00:26
College campuses are typically plagued with rapes, robberies, and other violent crimes because criminals know that these defenseless and sometimes ignorant college students are easy pickins.

So, yes college students should be allowed to carry with a permit on campus. Why the eff shouldn't they be allowed?

Foxtrotx1
03-07-2012, 02:59
Just because the Government is acting criminally, doesn't mean we have to accept it. There should be no gun laws.

So convicts and mentally handicapped peoples should be able to purchase firearms legally?

Foxtrotx1
03-07-2012, 03:00
There are people in college/universities of all ages. Not that I would want to impose restriction on an otherwise law abiding citizen that is able to carry elsewhere, just a reminder that some adults do go back to school too.



How much training would you feel comfortable with? Iím in Florida; I had to attend a class to get my license. It consisted of 2+ hour of going over the statutes and other valuable information as well as a few shots fired, the main purpose was for the instructor to observe that students handled the weapon safely; in spite that, there are still people who carry without a holster and break the firearm safety rules. Reckless, unsafe individuals donít change just because you force them to sit through a few hour course. Regardless of how much you try, those that are responsible will seek training on their own (whether required or not) those that are irresponsible and reckless will go back to their ways the second they get their certificate.

.

When I got my permit here in AZ it was 8 hours. :dunno:

Foxtrotx1
03-07-2012, 03:01
A permit, is a permit, is a permit. Someone is issued one after having met certain requirements, so either you are trusted or you are not. If you are good to go, I'm not sure why location should have any bearing on whether you can carry. The only exception I could think of is carrying into a prison or something.

The issue being some states don't require a permit.

Misty02
03-07-2012, 06:45
When I got my permit here in AZ it was 8 hours. :dunno:

Even if you made it 16 hours, it wouldnít turn the irresponsible into a responsible and safe person and vise versa. Much like a masterís degree doesnít equate to common sense and good working ethic.

.

Sam Spade
03-07-2012, 08:02
Even if you made it 16 hours, it wouldnít turn the irresponsible into a responsible and safe person and vise versa. Much like a masterís degree doesnít equate to common sense and good working ethic.

.

But you do cure the well-intentioned ignorant person whose understanding of lethal force is based on Internet BS.

slickt0mmy
03-07-2012, 08:10
This "sensible gun laws" mentality sounds awfully similar to a few unsavory politicians I know of....

As far as I'm concerned, the Bill of Rights is set in stone. These are our rights and you don't touch them. Stay away. This mentality (even among gun owners) of "Well certainly the founding father's didn't mean THAT!" is exactly what gives traction to the anti's whole debate.

B.Reid
03-07-2012, 08:34
So convicts and mentally handicapped peoples should be able to purchase firearms legally?

Criminals don't get permits, why should we?

B.Reid
03-07-2012, 08:36
You know, the second amendment is powerful, but the SCOTUS has ruled that stetes may place reasonable restrictions upon it.

If shall not be infringed applies, why can't people who are mentally ill or use pot buy guns?

I personally am tired of hearing about all these idiots who don't know what a holster is or the basic rules of firearms safety. That's why I like classes, at least expose them to it.

Flame suit is on, have at it.

So you would be OK with reasonable restrictions on free speech? Glock Talk would be one of the first to be shut down.

Misty02
03-07-2012, 08:58
But you do cure the well-intentioned ignorant person whose understanding of lethal force is based on Internet BS.

Yes, that much it does. There are other ways of accomplishing something similar; perhaps include some literature about what is available (in general terms) in the packaging of each firearm, or a link to the manufacturer’s website where they further expand on it.

I had no clue at first how much was available for me to take advantage of when I started. A website link opened a new world I didn’t know existed. Each training session (formal or informal) I’ve participated in has left me with two things: (1) new skills and knowledge (2) realization that there is still much more to learn and I’ve barely scratched the surface.

I strongly believe that a general idea of what we don’t know or fully master is as important as the acquisition of knowledge and skills. Without the first one, there isn’t a path to acquire the second one.

While there is a lot of internet BS, there is also a lot of good internet information. I participate in two forums, in both I read plenty of comments on how important training to acquire handling skills and reading/learning the statutes and laws are. A well-intentioned ignorant person who made it to the internet would skim through all the information provided and give weight to those comments that make sense to them. An irresponsible person would be attracted to the BS comments and make no effort to research, ask questions or take any steps to learn more. The later are the same people you find in classes with a bad attitude wanting to get it over with and just get their certificate, they also get upset when others ask question and extend the class beyond the mandatory time.

I’m not about to ignore the benefits the internet has had for me, I’ve learned a lot from the two groups I’m acquainted with.

.

Foxtrotx1
03-07-2012, 19:17
So you would be OK with reasonable restrictions on free speech? Glock Talk would be one of the first to be shut down.

Because free speech and gun ownership are one in the same. :upeyes: Other than being amendments to the Constitution, they are entirely different.

Besides, we do have limitations on free speech. Defamation, and pornography come to mind.

slickt0mmy
03-07-2012, 19:53
Because free speech and gun ownership are one in the same. :upeyes: Other than being amendments to the Constitution, they are entirely different.


Would you care to explain the difference, please?

yukon2004
03-07-2012, 20:00
If you have a CCW/CHL/CHP, yes, yes and yes

2afreedom
03-07-2012, 20:04
The entire crimnal-protection-zone philosophy has always baffled me. It's not lilke there's some chemical in the air at a post office, a college campus or the statehouse that suddenly makes me more likely to go on a murderous rampage. Likewise, there's nothing in the air at those places that would make an actual murderous psycho mysteriously decide to obey the law.

This. I have mixed feelings as to the permit/no permit debate due to the legal educational value of CCW classes.

That said, no one has ever been able to make a logical argument as to why Joe Student who has a CCW permit is more dangerous in his art history class than he is in Wal-Mart, the local mall, or on a crowded city sidewalk with a gun. There's nothing magical about a college campus that turns law-abiding people into criminals or protects unarmed innocents.

Foxtrotx1
03-07-2012, 20:15
Would you care to explain the difference, please?

Ability to open your mouth and ability to purchase an object are not in the same boat. Doesn't need much explaining. Do you think poeple should be able to buy grenade launchers and grenades? Anti tank rockets? Are those covered by the 2nd amendment.

slickt0mmy
03-07-2012, 20:41
Ability to open your mouth and ability to purchase an object are not in the same boat. Doesn't need much explaining. Do you think poeple should be able to buy grenade launchers and grenades? Anti tank rockets? Are those covered by the 2nd amendment.

Yet both are vital to protecting freedom...

If it came down to having some regulations on certain firearms or having no regulations on any weapon, I would absolutely go for no regulations. What would be the problem with responsible citizens owning a grenade launcher?

Foxtrotx1
03-07-2012, 21:43
Yet both are vital to protecting freedom...

If it came down to having some regulations on certain firearms or having no regulations on any weapon, I would absolutely go for no regulations. What would be the problem with responsible citizens owning a grenade launcher?

How about C4?

crash_gsxr750
03-07-2012, 21:45
Yes,

In fact let me expound on this matter: I believe the framers had very significant intent on the order of the "rights" in the bill of rights.

1. being freedom of speech and freedom of religion from gov.
2. right to arms.

everything else comes after that, private property rights, etc... all comes after: speech, religion, and arms.

Thus I believe the framers intended that the most basic of these rights: speech, beliefs, and to protect oneself and family supersceed the remaining "rights"

Therefore: i believe that my right to protect myself is greater than someone else's private property rights. I believe someone who has jumped through the hoops to get a CPL should be able to carry EVERYWHERE; schools, colleges, public land, private land, malls, bars, air ports, etc... (with some very limited exceptions where sufficient protection will already be provided, EX: some gov buildings, air planes).

Gunnut 45/454
03-07-2012, 23:09
Foxtrotx1
And thats where your wrong! The SCOTUS can interpt the COTUS they can't alter/delete what they want! And yes it says that in the COTUS. The SCOTUS is there to make sure that no laws are legistlated that don't adhere to the COTUS -it is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND! So yes "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" still applies in the full measure!:supergrin:

saxconnection
03-08-2012, 02:41
Yes,

In fact let me expound on this matter: I believe the framers had very significant intent on the order of the "rights" in the bill of rights.

1. being freedom of speech and freedom of religion from gov.
2. right to arms.

everything else comes after that, private property rights, etc... all comes after: speech, religion, and arms.

Thus I believe the framers intended that the most basic of these rights: speech, beliefs, and to protect oneself and family supersceed the remaining "rights"

Therefore: i believe that my right to protect myself is greater than someone else's private property rights. I believe someone who has jumped through the hoops to get a CPL should be able to carry EVERYWHERE; schools, colleges, public land, private land, malls, bars, air ports, etc... (with some very limited exceptions where sufficient protection will already be provided, EX: some gov buildings, air planes).
:goodpost:
I fully agree. There should only be two places where carry is not allowed. The "sterile" area of an airport, and inside gov. buildings where police are present. I'm amazed at some of the areas where we (Michigan, speaking for myself) are not allowed to carry. For example, any large event in Detroit (where I work). Inside the building, sure that's fine, security most places, but what about the walk from your car, which may have to be parked a good distance from the event to the event itself? It's also worse here in that we have campuses that preempt carry law such as U of M, and MSU.

Why not give college students the same rights we value so much? As far as mass shootings and violence goes, I feel they are at a much higher risk in their daily lives than most of us outside that atmosphere.

Adam

slickt0mmy
03-08-2012, 05:41
How about C4?

Why not?

Personally, I have no interest whatsoever in owning C4. I don't have the need for it, the knowledge to use it, the land necessary to detonate it, nor the funds to purchase it even if it were legal.
But if someone more fortunate than I wants to own C4, who am I to stop them?

Are you aware that farmers can already own dynamite? My uncle has a box of it sitting in his garage. Guess how many people that box has killed over the years....none.

Foxtrotx1
03-08-2012, 11:53
Why not?

Personally, I have no interest whatsoever in owning C4. I don't have the need for it, the knowledge to use it, the land necessary to detonate it, nor the funds to purchase it even if it were legal.
But if someone more fortunate than I wants to own C4, who am I to stop them?

Are you aware that farmers can already own dynamite? My uncle has a box of it sitting in his garage. Guess how many people that box has killed over the years....none.

Ok so you think it's a good idea for C4 to be freely available. I give up. :upeyes:

cloudbuster
03-08-2012, 13:14
Ok so you think it's a good idea for C4 to be freely available. I give up. :upeyes:

Your argument amounts to the Brady Campaign standard "blood in the streets" fear-mongering.

There are probably hundreds of ways to burn things and blow things up. Terrorists in Afghanistan aren't using high-tech explosives. They're using things you can buy at your local Home Depot. C4 is just a scary name. You can get enough explosive over the counter at your local fireworks store to blow up pretty much anything you'd want to blow up. All the ingredients to cook up TNT are commonly available without restriction, and the knowledge and equipment to do so are easy to obtain.

Yes, if C4 were available, sooner or later someone would use it to blow up a school or something. But someone that crazy would have just blown up or shot up the school some other way. What protects is that, despite popular media impressions, hardly anybody wants to commit mass murder!

If C4 was not illegal but was considered an armament and you had to fill out the same form you have for a rifle or handgun, or maybe even get a special authorization such as you need for fully automatic weapons, suppressors and short-barreled rifles or shotguns, I wouldn't be much worried at all. Virtually all of it would go to farmers and business that wanted a safe, convenient easily-used explosive for legitimate purposes. Some would go to survivalists who'd stack some in a closet and never touch it again. Some would go that crazy guy who would have just gotten dynamite or made himself some TNT.

Laws don't protect us against crazies -- they are immune to the deterrent effect. When sane, civilized people start using C4 against each other, it's because civilization itself has failed, not because there weren't enough laws.

We live in a climate of fear, because even as the homicide rate drops to the lowest rate in decades, the media makes sure to inundate us with lurid stories of the exceptions.

Fear breeds lack of trust, and that lack of trust is generally unwarranted.

cloudbuster
03-08-2012, 13:23
:goodpost:
I fully agree. There should only be two places where carry is not allowed. The "sterile" area of an airport, and inside gov. buildings where police are present. I'm amazed at some of the areas where we (Michigan, speaking for myself) are not allowed to carry. For example, any large event in Detroit (where I work). Inside the building, sure that's fine, security most places, but what about the walk from your car, which may have to be parked a good distance from the event to the event itself? It's also worse here in that we have campuses that preempt carry law such as U of M, and MSU.

Why not give college students the same rights we value so much? As far as mass shootings and violence goes, I feel they are at a much higher risk in their daily lives than most of us outside that atmosphere.

Adam

Um, exactly why shouldn't carry be allowed in the sterile area of an airport or inside a government building "where police are present?" What makes those places any different than a theater, a sports arena, or anyplace else large amounts of people gather? Should we be accepting of the idea that our government so distrusts its citizens that it won't trust them armed inside the nation's Capitols and state houses?

Court houses I can, maybe, understand, because of the high probability that you're dealing with criminals who, by definition, don't respect the laws and conventions of society.

But, even there, back when I used to work as a court reporter for a newspaper in the 80s, there were no metal detectors or bag or person searches or any other restrictions on movement in the court houses in Columbus, OH or any of the other cities I dealt with, and, amazingly enough, the court houses were not scenes of violent gunplay. I felt as safe walking the halls of those court houses as I would walking down the aisle of my church or local grocery store. And anybody could have been illegally carrying a gun.

But, now that metal detectors in court houses are standard operating procedure, it's almost as if we have societal amnesia and can't remember how, just a few years before, we'd existed for hundreds of years without ever needing them.

B.Reid
03-08-2012, 15:01
Ok so you think it's a good idea for C4 to be freely available. I give up. :upeyes:

Good, now go away! :rofl:

Warp
03-08-2012, 15:11
Of course licensed carriers ought to be able to carry on college campuses.

I still don't understand how any reasonable, logical person could conclude otherwise.

slickt0mmy
03-08-2012, 15:28
Ok so you think it's a good idea for C4 to be freely available. I give up. :upeyes:

It's about time.
Perhaps your outlook on this matter would be better shared with these fine folks instead:
http://www.bradycampaign.org

ICARRY2
03-08-2012, 16:50
Anything that annoys the gun grabbing liberals is a go for me.

dtuns
03-08-2012, 16:52
Yes and its legal here in Oregon.

crash_gsxr750
03-08-2012, 21:04
In MI, if you have your CPL you can open carry in nearly all PFZ

cloudbuster
03-08-2012, 21:30
To bring some data to this thread, the always-interesting John Lott (http://www.thevrwc.org/JohnLott.pdf). I encourage you to read the whole paper, but here's the Conclusions section:

Right-to-carry laws reduce the number of people killed or wounded from multiple victim public shootings as many attackers are either deterred from attacking or when attacks do occur they are stopped before the police can arrive. We are able to provide evidence for the first time that the harm from crimes that still occur can be mitigated. Given that half the attackers in these multiple victim public shootings have had formal diagnoses of mental illness, the fact that some results indicate concealed handgun laws reduce these attacks by almost 70 percent is remarkable.

Differences in state right-to-carry laws are also important: restricting the places where permits are prohibited increases murders, injuries and shootings; more training requirements reduce injuries; and higher fees increase injuries and the number of attacks. The much greater deterrence that right-to-carry laws have for multiple victim public shootings than for other crimes like murder is consistent with the notion that a higher probability of citizens being able to defend themselves should produce a greater level of deterrence. The results are robust with respect to different specifications of the dependent variable, different specifications of the handgun law variable, and different control variables. Not only does the passage of a right-to-carry law have a significant impact on multiple shootings but it is the only gun law that appears to have a significant impact. While other law enforcement efforts -- from the arrest rate for murder and the death penalty -- reduce the number of people harmed from multiple shootings, the effect is not as consistently significant as for right-to-carry laws. Finally, the data provides no evidence of substitution from shootings to bombings and little consistent evidence of “copycat” effects.

Note the italicized section (emphasis mine). I think Lott's syntax here is unfortunate. Read as written, it says that restricting where permits are prohibited (i.e. restricting gun free zones) increases attacks. Earlier in the report this is stated much better "The new regressions shown in Section B clearly show that the states with the fewest gun free zones have the greatest reductions killings, injuries, and attacks."

Basically, he finds: Gun-free zones == bad. More training == good. High permit fees == bad.

Jameson4all
03-08-2012, 22:28
There is no simple way to answer this.

cloudbuster
03-08-2012, 22:30
There is no simple way to answer this.

So rather than try out an even moderately complex answer, you just leave a completely uninformative post that brings nothing to the discussion. Way to go.

Warp
03-08-2012, 22:55
Basically, he finds: Gun-free zones == bad. More training == good. High permit fees == bad.

Pretty much.

Anything that reduces the number of good people with guns is a net negative. Things like expensive permits, training requirements, places off limits, etc, all reduce the number of good, law abiding people who go armed. And the location restrictions effect more than just those specific locations. Plenty of people don't carry, or don't carry on particular days, because they will be at an off limits location at some point, thus negative spillover.


Constitutional Carry with no places off limits beyond those that are physically secured (airports/commercial aircraft, jails, prisons, courthouses, some power facilities, etc) DO IT!

saxconnection
03-09-2012, 01:03
Um, exactly why shouldn't carry be allowed in the sterile area of an airport or inside a government building "where police are present?" What makes those places any different than a theater, a sports arena, or anyplace else large amounts of people gather? Should we be accepting of the idea that our government so distrusts its citizens that it won't trust them armed inside the nation's Capitols and state houses?

Court houses I can, maybe, understand, because of the high probability that you're dealing with criminals who, by definition, don't respect the laws and conventions of society.

But, even there, back when I used to work as a court reporter for a newspaper in the 80s, there were no metal detectors or bag or person searches or any other restrictions on movement in the court houses in Columbus, OH or any of the other cities I dealt with, and, amazingly enough, the court houses were not scenes of violent gunplay. I felt as safe walking the halls of those court houses as I would walking down the aisle of my church or local grocery store. And anybody could have been illegally carrying a gun.

But, now that metal detectors in court houses are standard operating procedure, it's almost as if we have societal amnesia and can't remember how, just a few years before, we'd existed for hundreds of years without ever needing them.

OK, off topic, but here goes. I haven't been around that long (28 years). I haven't been to a courthouse, (or county clerk's office, for that matter) where I haven't had to empty my pockets, take off my belt, and walk through a metal detector before entering. I understand perfectly. What better place to get your revenge on a judge that you perceived may have "wronged" you? What easier place to know exactly where they'll be at any given time? If you so chose, and no metal detectors were present, I would imagine it wouldn't be too hard for an unstable person to show up and get a shot off before being taken down by the bailiffs or officers nearby.
As for the "sterile" area of an airport, well if that's not obvious then I don't know where to begin. It's been shown people have "slipped through the cracks" in many checks. Look at, for example, Cho Seung-Hui , the VT shooter. He had a history of mental illness and still obtained a firearm. We have terrorist "sleeper cells" in the US. Is it that far-fetched for someone in one of those organizations is able to obtain a weapon, and because the "sterile" parts of an airport are no longer "sterile", start another 9/11? I don't like going through the metal detectors, but if they help prevent another act of terrorism, I'm for it. That's also not to say I believe everywhere should be like this. My opinion is only those highly sensitive areas should be restricted.

Adam

Back on topic, somebody get these colleges and universities in line. The sooner kids can carry on campus, the better chance they have of preventing another VT. Carry on!

Oso
03-09-2012, 01:06
Absolutely!!

saxconnection
03-09-2012, 01:51
There is no simple way to answer this.
Why? :dunno:

Misty02
03-09-2012, 01:58
OK, off topic, but here goes. I haven't been around that long (28 years). I haven't been to a courthouse, (or county clerk's office, for that matter) where I haven't had to empty my pockets, take off my belt, and walk through a metal detector before entering. I understand perfectly. What better place to get your revenge on a judge that you perceived may have "wronged" you? What easier place to know exactly where they'll be at any given time? If you so chose, and no metal detectors were present, I would imagine it wouldn't be too hard for an unstable person to show up and get a shot off before being taken down by the bailiffs or officers nearby.
As for the "sterile" area of an airport, well if that's not obvious then I don't know where to begin. It's been shown people have "slipped through the cracks" in many checks. Look at, for example, Cho Seung-Hui , the VT shooter. He had a history of mental illness and still obtained a firearm. We have terrorist "sleeper cells" in the US. Is it that far-fetched for someone in one of those organizations is able to obtain a weapon, and because the "sterile" parts of an airport are no longer "sterile", start another 9/11? I don't like going through the metal detectors, but if they help prevent another act of terrorism, I'm for it. That's also not to say I believe everywhere should be like this. My opinion is only those highly sensitive areas should be restricted.

Adam

Back on topic, somebody get these colleges and universities in line. The sooner kids can carry on campus, the better chance they have of preventing another VT. Carry on!

Red = a person with such intentions would also be suicidal if they attempted something like that where there are so many armed officers. If I were the judge in a similar situation, I would be more concerned when I leave each day and travel alone to my vehicle.

Blue = the safety you perceive in the sterile part of the airport is a good show of smoke and mirrors. In spite the metal detectors there was the underwear bomber. Would you care to do a google search to see how many firearms have made it past the metal detectors/baggage checks until after the person was inside the sterile portion of the airport?

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7848683 (http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7848683) This one should make you feel warm and fuzzy, but I donít recommend you do too many google searches or you might lose that sense of security you now feel.

Ok, just one more, but no others, I promise: http://fortworthinsight.com/news/attorney-woman-with-gun-at-dfw-passed-through-during-shift-change/ (http://fortworthinsight.com/news/attorney-woman-with-gun-at-dfw-passed-through-during-shift-change/) Itís ok she actually got in the plane armed, she didnít mean to do it and sheís a lawyer, so everyone was safe.

*****

Unrealistic on my part, I know, but I believe a law abiding citizen that otherwise qualifies for gun-ownership should be allowed to carry anywhere where his/her safety cannot be guaranteed by those in charge.

Iíll continue to obey the law as I understand them and not carry where I know itís prohibited, but that has nothing to do with thinking that it is a safe place and there is no need to carry.

.

Foxtrotx1
03-09-2012, 02:04
Maybe if we cut the welfare program and gave out free firearms training....

Misty02
03-09-2012, 02:13
Maybe if we cut the welfare program and gave out free firearms training....

Change one entitlement program for another? Hmmmm

How about having it as an elective (like driverís ed) at school? Perhaps even 10 minutes of safety a week in Elementary and Middle School? Repetition often works well.

.

saxconnection
03-09-2012, 02:22
Red = a person with such intentions would also be suicidal if they attempted something like that where there are so many armed officers. If I were the judge in a similar situation, I would be more concerned when I leave each day and travel alone to my vehicle.

Blue = the safety you perceive in the sterile part of the airport is a good show of smoke and mirrors. In spite the metal detectors there was the underwear bomber. Would you care to do a google search to see how many firearms have made it past the metal detectors/baggage checks until after the person was inside the sterile portion of the airport?

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7848683 (http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7848683) This one should make you feel warm and fuzzy, but I donít recommend you do too many google searches or you might lose that sense of security you now feel.

Ok, just one more, but no others, I promise: http://fortworthinsight.com/news/attorney-woman-with-gun-at-dfw-passed-through-during-shift-change/ (http://fortworthinsight.com/news/attorney-woman-with-gun-at-dfw-passed-through-during-shift-change/) Itís ok she actually got in the plane armed, she didnít mean to do it and sheís a lawyer, so everyone was safe.

*****

Unrealistic on my part, I know, but I believe a law abiding citizen that otherwise qualifies for gun-ownership should be allowed to carry anywhere where his/her safety cannot be guaranteed by those in charge.

Iíll continue to obey the law as I understand them and not carry where I know itís prohibited, but that has nothing to do with thinking that it is a safe place and there is no need to carry.

.
Red, I agree completely. Do you not think people who have a life changing judgement brought against them do not have the potential to be suicidal?

Blue, I never feel safe at an airport. I haven't checked your links yet. I will, but what I am advocating is deterrent. While it would be nice if the system worked, the people who wanting to commit terrorist acts were easily identified, and unable to purchase/own such weapons, that is simply not the case. There was also the "shoe bomber" BTW. My sister had a sub 2" folder she forgot about in her purse, and was detained, questioned intensely, and charged. Maybe some get through, but I'll bet a great many are caught as well.

I too carry everywhere I can, and am looking into some of the interesting MI laws that allow OC in "Gun Free Zones" with a CPL (not quite comfortable about OC yet). Take care, and thanks for the discourse.

Adam

cloudbuster
03-09-2012, 05:09
I haven't been around that long (28 years).

There you have it. Societal amnesia. You were a toddler when I was working as a reporter there. Huge high-rise county and municipal court complexes adjacent to a large county jail complex and the court houses and court rooms had no entry restrictions at all. And it wasn't dangerous. They relied on the good sense of the police officers on duty and the citizens present, and if you came in as a citizen, you didn't feel like you were under suspicion of being a mass murderer just for walking inside the court house.

I could even duck back to the judges' and stenographers' chambers in the back halls during recesses to ask a quick question, and most of the officers, at least at first, didn't know me from Adam. But I assume they had a good eye for who was shady and who was a young, eager reporter. :)

The statehouse at that time also had no metal detectors or entry restrictions, including into the legislators' chamber areas. I haven't been inside the statehouse in Columbus for many years to see if this is still true.

The government didn't treat the citizens as potential enemies by default. This wasn't that long ago (well, maybe to you it seems like a long time ago, a lifetime ago). People weren't any less dangerous or vicious back in 1986 or so -- D.C., New York and Chicago were still crime-infested gun-free zones and terrorists were still blowing up innocents around the world. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

cloudbuster
03-09-2012, 05:18
Red, I agree completely. Do you not think people who have a life changing judgement brought against them do not have the potential to be suicidal?

Blue, I never feel safe at an airport. I haven't checked your links yet. I will, but what I am advocating is deterrent. While it would be nice if the system worked, the people who wanting to commit terrorist acts were easily identified, and unable to purchase/own such weapons, that is simply not the case. There was also the "shoe bomber" BTW. My sister had a sub 2" folder she forgot about in her purse, and was detained, questioned intensely, and charged. Maybe some get through, but I'll bet a great many are caught as well.

I too carry everywhere I can, and am looking into some of the interesting MI laws that allow OC in "Gun Free Zones" with a CPL (not quite comfortable about OC yet). Take care, and thanks for the discourse.

Adam

You know, maybe if some of the good citizens on the 9/11 flights had been armed, with guns or even a "sub 2" folder" thousands of lives might have been saved. Mistrusting the citizenry as a default position is a prescription for creating helpless sheep. As Mark Steyn has said, a modern commercial airplane is a liberal's dream come true -- all honest citizens disarmed, criminal penalties for any failure to obey any instruction from authority, no matter how ridiculous, near-complete suspension of all rights.

And who were the only ones able to prevent terrorists from completing their mission on 9/11? Civilians. Who stopped the shoe bomber? Civilians. Who stopped the underwear bomber? Civilians. The civilians have earned some trust.

Warp
03-09-2012, 11:17
OK, off topic, but here goes. I haven't been around that long (28 years). I haven't been to a courthouse, (or county clerk's office, for that matter) where I haven't had to empty my pockets, take off my belt, and walk through a metal detector before entering. I understand perfectly. What better place to get your revenge on a judge that you perceived may have "wronged" you? What easier place to know exactly where they'll be at any given time? If you so chose, and no metal detectors were present, I would imagine it wouldn't be too hard for an unstable person to show up and get a shot off before being taken down by the bailiffs or officers nearby.
As for the "sterile" area of an airport, well if that's not obvious then I don't know where to begin. It's been shown people have "slipped through the cracks" in many checks. Look at, for example, Cho Seung-Hui , the VT shooter. He had a history of mental illness and still obtained a firearm. We have terrorist "sleeper cells" in the US. Is it that far-fetched for someone in one of those organizations is able to obtain a weapon, and because the "sterile" parts of an airport are no longer "sterile", start another 9/11? I don't like going through the metal detectors, but if they help prevent another act of terrorism, I'm for it. That's also not to say I believe everywhere should be like this. My opinion is only those highly sensitive areas should be restricted.

Adam

Back on topic, somebody get these colleges and universities in line. The sooner kids can carry on campus, the better chance they have of preventing another VT. Carry on!

1. The Virginia Tech killer. Are you saying that he should not have been legally able to purchase a firearm?

2. Terrorists, 9/11, etc...you do realize that they pulled off 9/11 with box cutters, right? And that a group with the right training and airport/plane access could probably get into the cockpit of an aircraft today without bringing firearms, right?

3. Something to ponder: To paraphrase a popular Franklin quote: Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.

4. The judge: What easier place to know exactly where they will be? Their home. The courthouse parking lot. The road(s) they take between the two. And they probably won't have armed deputies to protect them there.

5.