And despite the FACT that there never was one and nobody wants one, people are somehow anxious about the possibiliy that one could be started by a crazy person doing something crazy.

On October 29, 2002, a nursing student killed three of his nursing professors because he was failing their courses.

See link from the NYT below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/29/us/student-kills-3-instructors-and-himself-at-u-of-arizona.html

Concealed carry permit holder?

Flores always carried a handgun under his shirt. He had a concealed weapons permit and was an expert marksman in the military.

When this shooting occurred?

The shooters were licensed for concealed carry?

And people will get killed because of them .

But there is also no driving permitted on campus sidewalks, nor need driving be permitted everywhere all of the time.

We do test drivers periodically for proficiency.

not allowing people to drive on sidewalks is also usually a good idea...car vs pedestrian often doesn't go too well. Surely there are also laws concerning using your vehicle as a dangerous weapon.

Privileges can only go so far.

Typically drivers are tested when they get their license - I am all for that too!
Some proficiency is always a good thing.

Stop making excuses for bringing a loaded weapon into public spaces. There is no justification. Anyone who is that paranoid that they can't leave home without it should stay there, surrounded by the objects that make them feel safe. Gun bearers are indistinguishable from any killer with a gun and they should not inflict their insecurities on innocent bystanders who also have a right to be safe in public.

Try harder. We've been hearing these excuses for decades, from the NRA's monumental and horrific paeans to the gun, to the breathless excuses tossed around by those who try to justify guns in public with a collection of straw man, machismo arguments concocted from sheer paranoia. That alone should be enough to disqualified those people from ever owning a weapon. It is apparent to everyone that the current condition cannot stand because a society where armed men can deliberately terrorise other citizens is no longer a civilized society. Thankfully the series of recent appeals court rulings are against gun exhibitionists, and I look forward to seeing public safety restored.

Does this dodgey old technique actually work for you? It never worked very well for my toddlers. Seriously, is it your excuse then, that guns on campus is based a claim that since a specific category of gun violence seems to happen infrequently, guns are therefore great and restrictions are unnecessary? The logic is completely nonexistent.

You are expending a great deal of effort to avoid providing evidence of what you claim I believe. Why is that.

You're stuck, yeah?

Dishonest? What does that say of of the strength of your argument or your integrity?

A discussion about your integrity?

I see that you fancy yourself as quite the authoritarian figure. You've made the same repetitive demands throughout this thread -- did you even notice? -- ordering everyone to comply with your edicts and behaving like a troll. You've bullied a lot of other posters to avoid responding with any substantive reply on the issue of guns on campus. Now you're treading into stalker territory, still at it, hunting for another go round long after anyone else has responded to this thread. Cut you bad, yeah?

Still, petty nuances aside, you're continuing to dodge the topic of this thread and remain focused on salvaging your ego. So, here's the deal, Big Cheese, I'm waiting, too. Can you make a cogent reply here and actually address guns in any public spaces? Since the sight of a stranger with a gun is terrifying to most people, why would you, a purportedly normal person, albeit one with a loaded gun, deliberately do something so insanely provocative? Why are guns even necessary, let alone appropriate, needful, and hardly non-threatening, in a school, or any other public setting?

I have made excuses for carrying loaded weapons into public spaces. No other conversation can occur until either you do so, or acknowledge none such stated positions exist.

I had to read that twice to make sure I wasn't misreading it.

You really ARE playing the accusatory authoritarian/'daddy' card, and then immediately after, demanding that that poster justify his/her/others choices to you.

Hipocrisy and irony, live together in perfect harmony...

I look forward to reading your scathing criticism of the actual authoritarian figure I rebuked. On the other hand, perhaps a thoughtful comment on the actual topic of this thread (which is what I keep asking for, yeah?) would be the better course of valor and courage for you.

Look here, now at first blush, I am somewhat puzzled about why, as a group, the pro-gun eccentrics seem to concentrate on repeating ad homs, trivial fault-finding, and flashing their tempers to demand attention to their self serving, irrelevant whims... much like the fellow above, for example. It is exceedingly obvious that most of the substantive discussion is being shouldered by folks that want to see guns out of their public spaces. Since there is no succinct and valid counter argument to be found, and in light on the recent appeals court ruling against guns, I am very encouraged that public safety will be restored.

public spaces in general?

I referenced a case brought to the federal appeals court in San Francisco that challenged a California law that imposed stringent conditions on anyone applying for a concealed-carry permit. The ruling stated that the Second Amendment of the Constitution does not guarantee any right for gun owners to carry concealed weapons in public places.

With this decision the Ninth Circuit joins the Second, Third and Fourth circuits of the US Court of Appeals that have rendered similar rulings, upholding restrictions for concealed carry permits. It doesn't affect Texas, yet, but all these cases are wending toward the U.S. Supreme Court, although it's unlikely to move until the bench is fully manned again.

It's also safe to drive a car, but there are rules and restrictions that ensure public safety. The courts have a long history of rulings that restrict Constitutional rights, so there is no guarantee that anyone can do as they please. You omit people and give me C&P dry statistics that completely ignore everyone's basic human need to feel safe and not be terrorized in their own communities.

Most Americans don’t own a gun, and they want more gun control because they just want go about their ordinary business with a certain reasonable expectation for peace of mind and public safety in our civilized society. We expect that a visit to the neighborhood Starbucks for our morning latte will not include coming in contact with someone with a gun and being terrified, worried about some stranger's mental state, his motives or intent.

them to have guns so they themselves can feel safe and not terrorized.

Just an observation of why this is always such a difficult conversation.
Everyone's experiences being different. As are the reactions to fear, which is such a powerful motive for all involved.

Basically, if you are licensed/permitted to carry in one place, why not 'all'?

I wasn't sure if you were talking restoring safety to campuses in Texas, or had a wider focus.

ETA: Whatever happened with that DC decision from May saying they had to be shall issue? (is that one you referred to?)

Last edited Sun Aug 28, 2016, 08:34 PM - Edit history (1)

Seriously, is that what's upsetting you? I dunno, is it symptomatic, a fear shared by other emotionally high strung, gun owners? Be calm. If you get this riled up over a textual disagreement on public safety, whatever might you do to make your point with a gun at hand? Scary thought, yeah?

All that pent up rage is illustrative of why the public wants more restrictions on guns. Now just look at my state, California, that just implemented 6 new gun control laws... thank you, Gov. Brown!

Maybe in between your bouts of hysterical laughter and earnest protestations of denial, you might actually have a thoughtful response to the issues at hand or the current events I've highlighted in support? C'mon, there must be something relevant you want to add here.

You weren't really saying anything about the topic yourself.

Instructor Djamshid (Amir) Asgari, Cal State Northridge

Assistant Professor Robin Rogers, U of Arizona
Assistant Professor Cheryl McGaffic, U of Arizona
Assistant Professor Barbara Monroe, U of Arizona

Prof. David Eshelman, Central Missouri State

Time?

So what would further verification mean to you? Nothing.

Why would you interpret any more into it?

...Google search of the names given.

Judging from your OP and temperament I doubt you were agreeing to any other point I raised.

self control, civility, and respect for counter arguments do not appear to be among the many things you feel.

Personal attacks should not be tolerated

5 and flagged

Yes obviously in theory somebody could drive a truck down a crowded sidewalk as in Nice, or somebody could fill a moving truck with fertilizer and make a bomb like in Oklahoma City.

But for the most part they don't. They use guns. Guns are easy to get, easy to use, easy to conceal. They are a coward's tool.

But go ahead, stick your head in the sand and pretend that access to guns aren't the problem. Go ahead and ignore that more domestic violence homicides have been committed with a gun than any other weapon. Go ahead and ignore that suicides attempted with a gun are vastly more likely to kill than other methods. Those of us who aren't comfortable with ignoring those needless deaths have lives to save. But maybe there is some number at which point you will say it's enough. Apparently it's higher than the 33,169 who died in 2013. Maybe it will be if somebody close to you dies due to a gun. Of course, they are more likely to die from a gun you own than from a stranger with a gun.

Oh and for the record, statistically speaking, while firearm ownership rate has a positive correlation to death via firearm, it has no correlation with the non-firearm homicide rate, making the argument that somebody would just switch to another weapon, frankly stupid. I'm sorry if you don't like evidence, but well, tough.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2015/01/good_guy_with_a_gun_myth_guns_increase_the_risk_of_homicide_accidents_suicide.html

Guns need to go away. We've proven as a species we can't own them responsibly.

Which is why I refuse to be defenseless in an dangerous world.

...refuse to allow the state a monopoly on violence.

"It could never happen here and if it did you couldn't stop it and if you tried you'd just be a RWer."

Apparently, to some, in order to be a good Progressive one must be naive, helpless, and cliquish.

Unless the number of guns is DRASTICALLY reduced, or the relatively few who truly are not going to be responsible can be effectively dealt with, things will go on.

Blame it on the NRA, or the gun culture, or "cowards", or whatever else can be pointed at, but things won't be changing much anytime soon.

Try again

when their argument goes south?

Just keep trying to defend those indefensible "Second Amendment Solutions".

You're calling an anarchist a RWer because I applied your standards to your statements.

That is deflecting and distracting with non-sequiturs and name calling because your argument went south.

Anarchy is where the worst of the extreme Right Wing and the Worst of the extreme Left wing meet, at the opposite end of civilization.

The kind that only trusts the self-selecting elite with power, cannot tolerate dissent, and seeks to criminalize independence all the while relying on distortions to push forward what it is too ashamed to admit its goals.

If people cannot be trusted to govern themselves then none can be trusted to govern others and those who demand to govern others are the last to be trusted with the power to do so.

It speaks to the poverty of your position.

You can't even get my gender correct.

The extreme left wing and extreme right wing may meet at anarchy, however, the other end of the scale from anarchy isn't 'civilization', its authoritarianism.

You just call it civilization, which is an admission of sorts.

that there would have been a bang if they got a B.

She was in a panic over having missed the first semester exam (I was the T.A.), she said she would do whatever I wanted after class. This blurted out before I could explain the prof's policy was to let the next exam (cumulative) results count for the missed exam. She turned rather red, quietly thanked me and left. Kind of embarassing.

concealed carry permit holders to carry while on campus.

At least, that is my interpretation of the OP's connection to recent events.

I mean, is a student who would shoot a prof. over a grade going to leave it at home and go "Fuck! I wish I were allowed to bring this to class. Then I'd murder that POS!".

Everything is an opportunity to learn for all parties involved.

So long as discussion is actually occurring.

linuxman called your OP silly and I defended your posting for the sake of discussion and you choose to insult me -- yet again.

No doubt, allowing for only one single possibility is certainly the sign of a disciplined mind lacking any biases...

Silly, indeed.

Did he have a concealed carry permit? Was it legal for him to bring his weapon to the school? If weapons are banned on campus, what would prevent this act from happening!

so if you are saying there was no "good guy with a gun" you are right. IIRC even campus police didn't have guns back then. Not sure they even do today.

It was an isolated incident by a person who felt wronged.

And the same can happen. This law is really irrelevant.

Few people go the speed limit.
We have a presidential candidate who has made a career out of screwing people over.
Our economy was taken to the brink of extinction by a combination of lawless banksters and an administration that aided them.

So most laws are useless. The major power they have is the fear of punishment IF someone is caught.

Putting guns in the hands of everybody and thus empowering them to be their own enforcement seems like a formula for a whole lot of shooting without much regard to analysis of what is going on and what the consequences are. Life is not like the movies or bad TV shows.

of everybody?

i sure don't. I have seen enough carnage in my life in a little midwestern town.

Most probably would have been avoided without easy access to guns. Families ripped to shreds, survivors with lifelong injuries.

Just having more people carry guns, legally or not just increases the chances they will be used.

So how did you think I was for that? Honest question.

I was probably reading something into what you said. Thought you were angling to see a spot where you would show that legalized carry on campus could have prevented that attack at Iowa.

I get overly sensitive about guns. As I said I have had too many friends and acquaintances buried due to guns. Have had several threats due to LTTEs. Used to have a next door neighbor who had guns and an gripe against the city government when I was on council.

So I apologize if I made assumptions. Hope you can accept that apology and we can go forward to beat Trump.

I just get a little tired of people always saying firearms owners want everyone to have access to weapons.

Some even killed themselves over things like that.

What's stopped students from doing this already? Signs?

sitting next to your kid, playing cowboy defending poor helpless young women, getting their Man Card validated, . . . . . .








?resize=620%2C524&ssl=1

why's the guy in the first photo makes me laugh?

He was also prohibited from owning a gun due to a felony drug conviction and in SC it is illegal to carry a gun into places of worship.

didn't know, he looks like a looser with a toy gun... but look what a looser can do...

Awful ad. What kind of person needs a gun like that to feel like a man?

Do you think that a law telling them that they couldn't would stop them?

difference before campus carry was allowed? Anybody before could carry a gun illegally and go bang on the D grade. At least now the ones carrying legally are 21, have had a FBI background check and been licensed. Do you think this new decision got rid of the people who carry firearms on campus illegally?

Not to mention those that need to boost their self-esteem and are stupid enough to believe a gun will help.

Expecting the world to hinge on your biased delicate sensibilities on the other hand...

And in IMO, adding more guns to the mix is unlikely to improve anything.