Guns on campus is a maniacal idea (NH)

http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/296359/guns-on-campus-is-maniacal-idea?SESSa0dd88446e6d0d57eeff0dbe7f0d0824=google

The year 2011 is shaping up to be the Year of the Gun in New Hampshire, and citizens are none the safer for it.

Lawmakers began the year by overturning the ban on carrying guns in the State House complex. They went on to pass a "stand your ground" law that allows citizens to use deadly force rather than first attempt to retreat when in any place they are lawfully entitled to be.

Steps to eliminate the need for a concealed weapons permit, and thus a criminal background check, failed. So did a plan to form a state "defense force" comprised of citizens charged with defending the state "from invasion, rebellion, disaster, insurrection, riot, breach of peace or imminent danger thereof." But an idea that's even worse, forbidding colleges and universities from banning guns from their campuses, lives on, thanks to its embrace by the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.

Ed MacKay, chancellor of University System of New Hampshire, put it nicely when he said campuses are "places where impetuous behavior can sometimes take place." The fact is, especially for males, the parts of the brain that affect judgment and decision-making aren't fully formed until their college years are behind them. And those college years can be booze-soaked and in some cases, as the recent arrest of 11 students at a UNH fraternity suggest, drug-addled. Adding guns to the mix will make campuses much more dangerous.

<more>

what he said...

yup

:sarcasm:

Heck I'm surprised they haven't figured out yet that UNH is a socialist institution and needs to be abolished altogether.

Want to check out the results of allowing guns on campus before they decide it is such a bad idea, they have been allowed for concealed carry in Oregon for quite some time now, can't seem to find anything about all the massacres this has caused, probably NRA is hiding all that info somewhere. Also a majority of college students are not of a legal age to have a concealed permit, federal law requires you be 21 to own a hand gun and qualify for concealed carry.

Of course the detractors will adopt the republican standard for this forum and continue to use a dogmatic approach.

at the places where it is already legal, amIrite?

I shall contemplate the zephyrs whispering in the pines while I await the replies filled with damning evidence....

yup

And since you are the ones proclaiming doom and gloom, it's your onus to provide the evidence.

That's how debate works, hoyt.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=382537

However, we were regaled with accounts of shootings off-campus, shootings by prohibited persons, shootings by people
who simply ignored extant gun bans.

But nary a one by a legit permit holder, And since it can be demonstrated that it causes no harm, it should be allowed.

"The bottom line is that even if someone passes a background check
and qualifies for a concealed carry permit (if their state requires one),
that person is not necessarily a law-abiding citizen. They could have a
substantial criminal record involving misdemeanor offenses, or a history
of mental illness. It is notable that campus shooters including Gang Lu,
Wayne Lo, Robert Flores, Biswanath Halder, Seung-Hui Cho, Latina Wil-
liams and Steven Kazmierczak passed background checks in acquiring
the firearms used in their attacks. Some possessed a concealed carry
permit in their home states; others would have qualified had they applied. Finally, individuals who are
prohibited under federal law from owning or purchasing firearms can still pass a background check (and
potentially qualify for a concealed carry permit) if their disqualifying records have not been transferred to
NICS."
www.studentsforgunfreeschools.org/

a speeding ticket is a misdemeanor offense. Mental health issues include minor depression. The lack of a permit did not prevent anything.

And more to the point, which of those shootings occured on campuses that didn't legally allow firearms?

Word magic only works at Hogwarts, you know...

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

outside of your family? If so then post cites.

Was afraid to look, but the negatives turned out to be much less.

Are you seriously suggesting that everything anyone does must be beneficial to others before it is permitted?

the same as anywhere else. Despite these stereotypes (tempestuous, booze-soaked, drug-addled), the campus world isn't magically separate from what's around it, and most of the behavior that gives rise to these stereotypes occurs off-campus anyway, where campus gun bans don't apply now.

Using these 'crazy kids' arguments to in favor of a ban is unfair and insulting to the mature and thoughtful students who make up a large but unsung part of the community, and who are entitled to make their own adult choices about self-protection...

Please explain this statement:

"Steps to eliminate the need for a concealed weapons permit, and thus a criminal background check, failed."

Eliminate a background check...how...exactly?

:rofl:

yup

The more guns on Campus by law biding people is a good thing. I have been carrying a gun (38 or 357mag) since 1976. Shot one person (drunk driver driving down a sidewalk and already hit one person ready to hit others). He didn't die but he did later after his jail sentence he drove a motor cycle drunk and hit a parked truck.

We have to STOP the criminals in their track if they have a weapon.

Bookmarked

How did you know it wasn't a diabetic with an insulin reaction? or an elderly person that lost control?

Did your great big gun whisper to you?

well did it it????

:thumbsdown:

How the hell did you get away with that? How did you know he was drunk and not ill? Do you wear a badge or a cape?

:shrug:

VT had a campus gun ban, just like folks here support, so did Northern Illinois University, in fact there is no CCW in Illinois.

So when someone started shooting there was no one on site to do anything about it while the police set up a cordon around the buildings and the only defense was trying to barricade the door and pleading for your life.

While students and teachers hid the best they could, they were defenseless and being murdered. Meanwhile, the campus cops stood around outside with their fingers up their asses, listening to the gun shots, waiting for the city police to show up with the SWAT team.

What did you learn?

We learned there is nobody on campus to stop a crazed killer because only law abiding gun owners follow the laws, criminals do not.

Now is anyone else going to spin this where they somehow think more fuel on the fire is going to reduce the damage done by excessive gun production?

and has nothing to do with excessive gun production.

Why should the vendor care about a damn thing beyond the sale of the item? It is an inanimate object - nothing more. The vendor is in business to make money - nothing more. He carries no moral, legal or ethical responsibility for how someone may misuse a product he sells at some point in the future.

I would also submit to you that production is not excessive. There is hardly a surplus of firearms sitting in warehouses. Seems to me production is keeping pace with demand.

So basically, you didn't really learn shit. You just applied your personal fantasy filter over reality and have attempted to place blame on others rather than the individual responsible.

Or the National Association of Automobile Manufacturers for drunk driving fatalities.

Tools don't compel anybody to do anything.

you have to assume it is the CCW killing each other instead of gangsters killing each other. When you subtract the drug gang business disputes, our murder rate is about the same as Europe. Come to think of it, places where gun laws are very lax like Vermont and Wyoming are safer than Europe.

Oh yeah, Europe's murder rate was astronomical before guns were invented.

Gun bans as word magic, a stated belief in animism- I'm surprised someone isn't peddling bulletproof shirts..

The STATE failed to report Cho's disqualification to NICS, thus allowing him to purchase a firearm.

So, no, you didn't learn a damn thing from Virginia Tech.

Allowing concealed handguns on campus would affect half of the senior class, the other students remain ineligible due to their age. Plus, most seniors do not live on campus.

Why the fuck are these administrators allowing so much alcohol and drug abuse on campus?

is no place for the Bill of Rights.

Keep that Bill of Rights off campus.

Kids who want to tote guns should join the military, where the BOR doesn't apply either.

It is trumped by the Constitution, including the BOR. The Miranda warning is in Article 31. In the US, a military court is more fair than a civilian court because both sides have equal resources and the prosecution is prevented from poisoning the jury pool through the media.
The students at VT, what would you have done better while the police stood around outside with their finger up their asses listening to the gun shots?

I was pointing out that when you become the property of Uncle Sam, you forfeit certain rights. 1A comes to mind. As you well know, the military is not a democratic institution.
What would I have done at VT? I wasn't there, but my daughter's best friend was, so I do have an emotional connection. There are very few shootings on college campuses. All of them are tragic. Some think the answer is to arm students and teachers. I think a much safer option would be to install metal detectors and have zero tolerance for weapons in a learning environment.

allowing those who can legally carry off-campus do the same on-campus. And I see no problem with that - CCWers create very few problems in general, and there's no reason to think that would change on campus. (Also, the primary argument for allowing CCW anywhere is to give those who choose the chance to protect themselves; any crime prevention or benefit to others is lagniappe.)

Campus shootings are very rare, but we know that they are not deterred by campus gun bans. I doubt that any realistic physical barrier would be much more of a deterrent - can you imagine the fences, checkpoints, guards, and hassle that would be needed to have any hope of keeping weapons off campus?

You mention the learning environment, but a fortress architecture and TSA-style checkpoints would be far more damaging to the university atmosphere than the occasional gun in someone's pocket that no one ever sees. Not that it's either/or, since CCW is not about enhancing campus security, and is unlikely to have a detrimental effect on campus safety.

Beyond that, this campus-military comparison is ludicrous. Universities are not places where people should "forfeit certain rights" - they're places where rights should be vigorously discussed and defended...

it kind of is. You also have 1A rights, just that the restrictions are more complicated. I used to bad mouth Bush and Cheney at work. Others did Clinton. Those are not offenses for enlisted members. If I were an officer, I could have faced legal problems.

There are very few shootings, true. Unfortunately, violent crimes such as rape is not as rare.

Metal detectors are a viable option (although zero tolerance rules tend to be taken to absurd extremes). Arming students and teachers works in Israel. I had a friend that was an exchange student to Israel was freaked (even coming from a gun owning family) when the math teacher walked in with an Uzi on his shoulder. Of course, this is a country where you can to to a police station and check out a gun, including full auto, like it was a library book.

But that is not the point. The idea is not to arm students and teachers, the idea is to give them that choice.
Either choice would be better than what was done. One nutcase vs several students and teachers with no training in escape and evasion and unable to defend themselves while the cops stood around outside listening to the gunshots.

...but from a legal perspective a 21 year old is most assuredly an adult. Why should someone who is 21 years old and doesn't go to college have the ability to CCW, but someone who does attend college has to give up his rights in order to go to school? Makes no sense to me...

behavior, in your own opinion, doesn't support in any way the notion that other adults should suddenly be treated differently on a college campus compared to off the campus when it comes to their own personal choices. If there was an argument to be made relative to the specific business or security of the university that would be one thing, but there isn't...

They forfeit many rights in furthering that purpose. Smoking and drinking in class. Submitting to a somewhat structured environment and the rules of the administration. The fact is that most students, teachers and administrators strongly oppose campus carry.

Ever been to a US college or university? It is not as structured as secondary. I have my coffee or diet Pepsi on my desk half the time.
While I don't know the percentage of students et al who oppose it, their arguments are pretty weak.

Polls are all over the place and I don't trust the one's Ive seen. But I have 3 kids who've attended college and I've visited several and attended a couple myself.
I know that they and all their friends totally oppose campus carry. I know several professors and associate professors and they all feel the same.

no, because most students are under 21. The college I go to now have dual enrollment with high schools, so many are under 18. That and my kind of puritan upbringing. My mom never allowed alcohol in her house.
That said, how do you feel about Wyoming's University/college system rule that you may conceal carry as long as you have written permission from campus security?
Before you ask, I last went to a Wyoming college between 1887-1995, which the map has is "may issue". It kind of wasn't. IIRC (I looked it up for a high school term paper, during the Carter years) Wyoming was shall issue to specific occupations (private investigators, doctors that made house calls, and pharmacists are the ones I remember.) No issue to everyone else.

Anyone armed in such a highly populated environment should undergo the closest scrutiny and serious training in respect to that environment. Maybe part of a campus police auxiliary force and known to fellow students as such.

private rent a cops or poorly trained like the ones that stood around at VT. Colleges and universities are not highly populated, and I am against rule or law that allows arbitrary power.

it is necessary power for the proper functioning of the institution. That is my opinion.

There are many everyday situations when and where civil rights are limited.

...everyday situation where civil rights are limited.

Next time you go to an airport or any federal building, try exercising your first, second, fourth and fifth amendment rights.

Irony, eh?

I can exercise my first amendment rights at any of those locations. Second? That one is certainly restricted but ostensibly others are taking responsibility for my safety. 4th and 5th? Those are not in any way restricted or suspended. Thanks for trying to make the equation though.

Care to try again?

Next time TSA asks you to strip or remove your shoes, try making a joke about terrorism, if you really want to know how well your first amendment rights are protected. Sounds like you are ok with others taking care of your 2A rights on a plane, but not at church or in class. Interesting. I suggest you study the other amendments in terms of search and seizure of personal property without cause, due process and compensation. Seems you don't have much of a grasp on the issue of constitutional rights, and kind of ironic that the one you are most comfortable relinquishing is the one you shout about so loudly.

...of making a joke about terrorism. There is nothing stopping me from doing so. However, as such jokes are taken seriously in those situations, I would do so knowing the risks. As it would only be a joke, while I would be detained, i would ultimately face no criminal charges.

I am not "ok" with people taking care of my right to keep and bear arms, and in fact, they don't. They simply make it illegal for me to carry a firearm on a commercial carrier as part of my carry on luggage. I can still pack one in my checked luggage, and I can still carry other forms of arms - and I do. After all - ANYTHING can be a weapon in the right hands.

I said NOTHING about being comfortable with relinquishing my rights under any circumstances. I accept that currently I must tolerate them being restricted in certain specific environments and I work to get many of those changed.

You, on the other hand, seem perfectly fine with not only relinquishing your 2nd Amendment rights, but want me to give mine up as well...

I'm sure the TSA would be fascinated to know what kinds of weapons you are carrying. My decision to not exercise my 2A rights is very different from relinquishing them. It merely demonstrates my lack of paranoia and general fear of others. Having spent almost seven decades on this planet in dozens of countries, I have never had the need or desire to be armed. I do not think I am unusual in that. Even as a police officer, when my life was threatened, it never entered my mind that a handgun might have helped.
The compulsive toting of a gun is no different to dependency on heroin or alcohol, if you can't function properly without.

Just because you do not perceive them as weapons does not change their potential.

And again with the insinuations? When will they end?

if whim or personal decision is allowed, it is arbitrary. That is the problem with may issue. In NYC, you would have to take absurdly detailed test (kind of like Alabama literacy tests written in Chinese)and wait for months. Don Imus (never mind his coke addictin) or members of Aerosmith on the other hand, same day service after bribing officials. That could be why New York and California CCWs are not valid in Wyoming.
ar·bi·trar·y (ärb-trr)
adj.
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.
4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.

Not the decisions they make.

You don't look that old.

you're being to blurry and casual with that phrase "forfeit many rights." Actually asking a person to give up a right should require a significant justification and substantial scrutiny.

But that to the side, there's no university-specific reason to bar concealed carry: a firearm that nobody sees creates no disruption, does not impair the educational process, and does nothing to impair the safety and security of the campus. The only (invalid) arguments that I've seen in favor of these restrictions rest on the nebulous assumption that universities - like churches - are 'different,' and/or on stereotypes of college students as irrational, mercurial, drug-addled alcoholics.

I'm in favor of shall-issue CCW (with training requirements) for adults in general. Since this practice creates no appreciable problem outside the university, there's no reason to think that it will mysteriously become problematic on campus...

It's no different, in a way, than carrying a Bandaid in case you cut yourself. Normal enough, maybe a tad anal, but follows a certain logic and appeals to certain personality types. Careful people. Righteous people. Insecure people. Frightened people. Smart people and probably some paranoid people.
Most college students arrive straight from high school, where the thought of handguns in class is anathema. They don't need to be wondering who might be carrying a gun around. College campuses are full of all kinds of folk in all kinds of moods. Most are at a very critical and highly stressful point in their lives. Introducing invisible handguns into their environment as a potential problem solving tool is a recipe for disaster.

Most have no problem forfeiting their Constitutional rights when boarding an airplane or ship. Why should a college or church be any different. They are the ships of knowledge and faith and as such should be sanctuaries of learning and spirituality.
At the very least, I would let the students decide by a democratic vote. That way kids can choose whether they want to go to a gun-free school or not. They shouldn't have it foisted on them by a bunch of state legislators in the pockets of lobbying groups like the NRA.

(I would let some monasteries slide on taxes)churches should be the same as any other private entity or business, it should be up to the church's management and not the state.

Despite flowery analogies about ships of knowledge, universities are not magically different spaces. If trained adult CCWers pose no problem off-campus, there is no legitimate reason to bar them from campus (and absolutely no justification to let let students - or anyone else - vote to exclude mere 'stuff they don't like').

You're quite simply wrong in your interpretation, and now you've introduced another strange assessment of college students (timidly wondering who has a gun) as well as what I take to be a veiled and nonsensical implication about the role concealed firearms play in daily life. (Depending on what you meant by "potential problem solving tool" of course - obviously guns are the correct tool for rare and specific problems.) Allowing responsible adults to make their own private decisions on-campus, in exactly the way they do off-campus, is in no way shape or form a "recipe for disaster."

Each of us thinks he's right. I respect your opinion, though I disagree with it. You see it as a private decision, I see it as an institutional decision. A school is not a democracy.

suggested that students be allowed to vote democratically on whether or not to ban guns from campus. :shrug:

Campus policy should be an institutional (and state*) decision, but I hold campuses to the same standard as any other government entity: if they wish to restrict personal liberties, they need to be able to articulate a valid and reasonable reason for doing so. Particularly when the restriction touches on Constitutional issues.

In the case of concealed firearms, there is no credible evidence of disruption or threat that would arise from properly licensed adults choosing to carry them. Thus, the restrictions have no valid foundation (IMO). The claims the students don't want it, or might get nervous, or are too often intoxicated, or any other justifications presented thus far, cut no ice.


* I should have been more clear earlier that I've been intending to refer to public universities, as mentioned in the OP. As far as I'm concerned, private schools, churches, and other private entities can ban guns to their hearts' content.

In my experience, it was one of the calmer portions of my youth.

And yeah, I do have a problem with the forfeiting when flying. More because it's by government edict, rather than the company rules, but whatever. I'd like to vote with my dollars on that one.

Many people, including myself, share your disdain for the treatment travelers have been subjected to since 9/11. However, it is a classic example of individual rights being curtailed for the greater good. Similarly, few would go to a public library to exercise their 1A rights.

So do my comrades who go back to school after varying years of service.

College kids fresh from high-school may think it's pressure. Lack of perspective is more apt.

"...it is a classic example of individual rights being curtailed for the greater good." Curtailing freedom and liberty that pose no direct, imminent, severe threat of harm is never done "for the greater good". And if you believe otherwise, I can not help you.

Maybe it's time you left your guns at work. But, as you would point out, that's your choice. Most veterans I know had there fill of guns during their service. I know several young guys who have returned from tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, severely disturbed. I've talked at length with them and feel deeply for them. A lot of anger, depression, feelings of betrayal by their government, substance abuse, broken relationships. The thought of them carrying a weapon to school, work or the local bar, is nightmarish. Also, having served, you should be comfortable operating in an environment where your rights are curtailed. You make a contract with the government when you sign up. A student also makes a contract to abide by campus rules. They can always choose another school.

Your aquaintences are not overachingly representative.

"Also, having served, you should be comfortable operating in an environment where your rights are curtailed." Yes, as a requirement of certain service. NOT as a requirement of Citizenship. Big difference. And no, it's not at all "comfortable. Ask the folks who lived through Ft. Hood how "comfortable" it was to be "curtailed" and defenseless while a criminal shot them. So much for your "join the military to carry a gun" bullshit.

Seriously, you are merely demonstrating glaring ignorance and very poor logic. I urge you to stop while you are only waist-deep in this hole.

You chose the military and the curtailment of individual freedoms that go along with that. It has nothing to do with citizenship.
I think my friends, relatives and acquaintances are representative, as they are different ages, ranks and come from different parts of the country and I don't know of one who would think about carrying a gun in a civilian environment. And they are not all Democrats. Mostly, they are decent guys trying to regain, or hold on to their sanity and get on with their lives.

"Most have no problem forfeiting their Constitutional rights when boarding an airplane or ship."

And yet when someone is the owner of the airplane or ship, they can carry guns if they so choose.

"At the very least, I would let the students decide by a democratic vote."

What else would you let them vote on? And what wouldn't you let them vote on?

"That way kids can choose whether they want to go to a gun-free school or not."

They have that choice regardless of whether any particular school allows it or not, unless ALL allow it.


"They shouldn't have it foisted on them by a bunch of state legislators in the pockets of lobbying groups like the NRA."

On the other hand, if they take state or federal dollars, they should be made to adhere to the bill of rights.

Really - I'd love to know. I am unaware of a single right one forfeits in exchange for an education.

1A rights are usually restricted to public areas.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=203717

"Professor Called Police After Student Presentation"

Gotta keep those 'dangerous and inflammatory' ideas out of the classroom, amirite?

The professor over reacted, for sure, but better to err on the side of caution. Try joking with a TSA agent.
Classes, though composed of individuals, are not about individuals. The group comes first, just as it does on a plane or ship. Society's needs outweigh individual needs. That's why we call it society.

..."staff and students at college campuses that allow this already"? If you can show harm to this group, you might have something.

It is utterly without principal or regard for individual liberty or freedom.

No, thank you.

You've spent more than two decades in an organization that depends on group support, survival and coordination at the expense of the individual.
You gave up many of your individual rights over 20 years ago. Now you want them back in the form of carrying a gun around in a civilian environment. That makes us all feel very secure.

If it were problematic, I'd assume you could find some accounts online.

People live with cancer every day. Does that mean they are well?

Something beyond "I don't like the idea".

going for something more empirical than an op ed. Oh yeah, has it been confirmed that the Temple student shot a fleeing felon in the back?

Proof that there is a problem, and it isn't those carrying legally.

Legal guns become illegal guns every day. What is it about that fact that you don't understand. Adding fuel does not extinguish a fire.

A legal penis become illegal rape tool every day.What is it about that fact that you don't understand. Adding fuel does not extinguish a fire.

are stolen from the police? Given the microscopic number of guns diverted compared to the number of crimes prevented, I would say there is more baking soda than lighter fluid being dumped on the fire.

Edit to add, we are both old enough to remember street gang weapons before the war on drugs. They were mostly knives, tire chains, homemade maces. They could not afford guns, so the few that did were either zip guns or some $20 piece of shit made by Clerke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearm
none of these were legal:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/22/1090464799535.html

The French, Danish, and Polish freedom fighters made copies of the STEN sub-machine guns in bicycle repair shops and basements. I doubt the Nazi puppet governments gave them licenses to do so (which made their guns, illegal before they were legal)

Nobody should carry weapons to be used against humans, except in battle.

...and that this did not occur on campus.

I'm sure those small omissions were entirely inadvertent on your part:

http://www.phillyburbs.com/my_town/warrington/warrington-man-shoots-back-at-would-be-robber/article_cdf5decf-b2ac-504d-a169-abc463e0c1a6.html




http://articles.philly.com/2011-09-06/news/30118806_1_temple-officials-campus-temple-university-student

Turnabout is fair (gun)play
September 06, 2011|BY CATHERINE LUCEY, luceyc@phillynews.com 215-854-4172




http://temple-news.com/tag/robert-eells/



Try again.

Point is that Eells, being a proud CCW holder, felt emboldened to stand his ground and raise the ante. Hopefully, he'll use his head next time and easily avoid this kind of confrontation. Fortunately nobody was killed, but as usual, the taxpayers get a nice bill.

Then again, it's not your life that was at risk, was it? It's not unknown for you lot to claim that if you cooperate, you won't be hurt.

Sadly, it's not true in too many cases:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=278560

Another compliant store clerk is shot and killed


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=314806

You might be willing to gamble that "thieves just want the money".


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=350571




http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=460331

"Trial in ’09 store clerk’s death opens" (Compliant victim shot dead)



I, too, hope Eells uses his head next time- and fires until his assailant is no longer moving...

for no useful purpose?

Sheesh.

You seem to think we turn into robots or something. Speaking of "living in a bubble"....

Having a right does not mean it must be constantly exercised. Rights are not muscles. 2A rights exist for those extremely rare occasions when they may be needed. Compulsive toting is extreme behavior and an abuse of that right and in all probability, will eventually lead to all of us losing it. Be careful what you wish for.

Maybe we should do continue the conversation in DU3, a whole new world.

We need all kinds of dangerous 'things' in the classroom.

Acids, bases, solvents, bunsen burners spewing flammable gas. Boiling liquids. Explosion hazards. Carcinogens are needed. Biohazazds are a must.

Chemicals capable of killing an entire classroom are also completely necessary in that classroom.

Got to have scalpels, saws, lasers, lathes, hydraulic presses, high voltage, huge tanks of oxygen and of acetylene.

If you want to get away from the dangerous 'things', you can't even go outside- there's people walking around with heavy wooden skull crushers (some folks call them 'bats').

What made you think that guns are the only dangerous thing on campus?

Got to have a fire extinguisher in the classroom... but maybe not, since fire doesn't 'belong' on campus.

Heart problems don't 'belong' on campus, so neither does the AED.

Does the fact that a person does not want bad things to happen really justify depriving the student body of the 'things' they need to cope with those bad situations?

If you deprive students of dangerous things, don't you also deprive them of chemistry, physics, engineering?

But if students CAN be trusted to use hydrofluoric acid properly, why can't they be trusted to use a gun properly?

Glad I didn't go to university in the UK.

And what does the UK have to do with it? University of Kentucky?

rights in university. That would include the student's freedom to speak in the classroom, regardless what the institution thinks. Based on your post, I am guessing students in the United Kingdom have no such right.

I said they are limited. Classrooms are places for learning and the exchange of ideas in a structured format. They are not a place for unbridled free speech and chaos. Do you really believe this country has more individual freedoms than the UK?

yes. Stop on he street and frisk without probable cause, from what I am understand: yes.
The UK's libel laws do limit freedom of speech.

Can a British student disagree with or correct the instructor?

stop and search laws:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8453878.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/stop-and-search


Based on reading these and some progressive sources, yeah they kind of do. Not by the Crown, but the lack of money. It seems that their libel laws make SLAPP suits easy to file. Here, the plaintiff has to show what is said is untrue as well as show damage. If what is printed is true, it is not libel. For all practical purposes, that does limit free speech by allowing winnable SLAPP suits.
If I understand this correctly, the plaintiff only has to show damage to reputation, even if true.
http://www.pugilator.com/awareness/are-british-libel-laws-used-to-silence-mecfs-debate-in-belgium/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jan/06/libel-laws-nick-clegg
http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/102585/British-Libel-Law-Its-Ripple-Effect-on-Journalists-Worldwide.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

You, however, seem to think that you can tell others not to carry one. That is where the conflict arises.

You make your choices and I'll make mine.

I have come to the same conclusion though.

When there are no more people in the world who would harm another just because they can, then I will reconsider it again. Until then, I see no reason to change my mind.

WANTING people to be able to live free of harm is one thing. Pretending harmful things do not exist is another.

Hence, I do not contribute to the problem of criminal activity. I do not engage in those acts.

defending myself from those who are contributing to the problem is not the same thing - but then again, you knew that...

The more handguns in circulation, the more fall into the hands of those you would defend yourself against. But you knew that. You lose your gun to the wrong person and you have just contributed. It's a vicious cycle.

So, unless you're one of those Borkian 'moral harm' types there seems to be no problem.

How about, kids in America are 12 times more likely to be killed by a gun than kids in 25 other industrialized nations combined.
Not a problem to you?

the kids who are killed and are doing the killing are mostly gangsters killing other gangsters fighting over who gets to fill someone's bong bowl. Don't see very many of them on campus or with CCWs.

OK, that explains everything. I never realized that the whole problem was being caused by a bunch of teenage pot heads. Unbelievable.

are fueling it with their money. Our murder rate of 4.8/100,000 is a national average. Now break it down by area. It is much higher in large cities and drug trade routes. Places like Vermont and Wyoming are as safe as Europe.

The states you mention have about 3 times the suicide rate of Washington DC and New York. But of course suicides don't count, even though 90% of unsuccessful suicide attempts are not followed up by sussessful suicides.

and we are talking about murders.
My question still stands on suicides:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=483976&mesg_id=484890

How do gun laws affect suicide rates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_suicide_rate

Else someone might wonder why Canada, with quite strict gun laws compared to the US, has a higher suicide rate than the US.

Or along the same lines: Why does Japan, with very few guns in civilian hands, have a suicide rate that is higher than the US
murder and suicide rates combined. One might get the idea that non-gun suicides don't matter as much in certain circles...

"The states you mention have about 3 times the suicide rate of Washington DC and New York." (re:Vermont and Wyoming)

Which places have the larger suicide PROBLEM?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x483029

Got anything else?

Got lots more, but let's stick with them one at a time. You acknowledge we have a problem. Got any solutions or ideas for eliminating that problem or evidence that there is a noticeable decline?

You will note that none of the above involve restricting a group of people who aren't the cause of the problem...

Feel free to promote any stereotypes you want, however.

And I have no idea what you mean by promoting stereotypes. I don't find too many stereotypes around here, but rather independent thinkers.

"Kids who want to tote guns should join the military..."

Right, and kids who want to protest should join the ACLU... :eyes:

If the college takes so much as 1 red cent of public money, the bill of rights ought to definitely apply.

"Kids who want to tote guns should join the military"

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.”
~Heinrich Himmler

Not exact, but close enough.
Interesting choice of wording.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Lesson One:
Your personal freedom charter- the Bill of Rights- DOES NOT APPLY to you if the establishment says it doesn't.

Lesson Two:
This proposition:
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

Really means:
"...the right OF THE POLICE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
and
"...the right of American college students SHALL BE INFRINGED WHENEVER AND HOWEVER THE ESTABLISHMENT WANTS"

Lesson Three:
It's better if you never read the Bill of Rights. But if you stubbornly insist upon reading it, don't count on exercising a specific right.

Lesson Four:
You are state property- you have no rights the state is bound to respect. Rather, you are indulged with certain narrow favors- subject to modification, cancellation at any time- which the state chooses to dispense.

American college students are 'sworn in' to college, and thereafter abide by the Uniform Code of Academic Justice.

Produce the document.

Since you claim that Universities can do whatever they want irrespective of our rights as Americans, why can't they get rid of women, blacks, Jews, etcetera- really turn back the clock to the high point of massive disrespect for rights? After all, if Amendment II doesn't have to be respected, why should anything else?

Since the University knows best, why not reinstate slavery on campus (Grad school??!!) - that other state of being defined for a person debarred the use of arms. Is that the core tenet of your argument, that people have must lose any rights that University policy chooses to shear from them?

How about a 'No blacks may sit at the lunchroom counter' policy. Why not? That WAS 'official policy' in some places, I seem to recall. And again, why not, since rights don't have to be respected.

in the form of NCAA sports. The idea that the athletes work for free while the university rakes it in.
Not saying I buy in to it, only that you reminded me of the argument some years ago.

though in some specialized and sometimes highly modified ways.

But since you seem very unfamiliar with actual military life, outside your stereotypes, I'll let you do your research.

:boring:

Ed MacKay, chancellor of University System of New Hampshire, put it nicely when he said campuses are "places where impetuous behavior can sometimes take place." The fact is, especially for males, the parts of the brain that affect judgment and decision-making aren't fully formed until their college years are behind them. And those college years can be booze-soaked and in some cases, as the recent arrest of 11 students at a UNH fraternity suggest, drug-addled. Adding guns to the mix will make campuses much more dangerous.

The simple fact is that in most, if not all states, you must be 21 years old to obtain a CCW permit.

And the fact is, if a 21-year-old non-college student is permitted by law to carry a firearm, then there is no reason why a 21-year-old on a college campus can't do so, too.

would be what is the chancellor doing about the under-aged drinking and drug abuse? Did I go to a really mellow school or has MacKay been watching Animal House too many times?

arguments made by Students for Concealed Carry on Campus - and not surprisingly, ZERO responses were tendered:

http://concealedcampus.org/common_arguments.php

Pour yourselves a nice glass of your favorite beverage, make yourselves comfortable, and prepare to enjoy (once again) the marvelous Symphony of Crickets in D.

So I have to buy a gun and a safe to go to your college?

Only you, it seems.

...on school property.

The fact that they already can carry guns on their frat house property and throughout no-UNH Durham, but he can't cite an incident of firearm violence shows that he is merely fear mongering.

Aren't they already "gun free" zones? Such a great idea. Just post a sign and poof...no more guns...no more crime...no more evil.