Allowed to be armed on Campus

Options
24

Replies

  • shor0814
    shor0814 Posts: 559 Member
    Options
    Erik8484 wrote: »
    Karb_Kween wrote: »
    More guns fixes the problems

    Yeah

    Look where all the mass shootings happen. Oh weird, most of them happen places where guns aren't allowed. Because criminals don't seem to care about "You can't have guns here" for some reason.

    I thought most of them happened in the USA where guns are allowed though? Or am I missing your point?

    Most of the shootings in the US happen in locations where weapons are not allowed like schools, movie theaters, government buildings, nightclubs, .... Businesses are free to restrict weapons and they re not allowed in schools and goverment buildings for the most part.
  • DeficitDuchess
    DeficitDuchess Posts: 3,099 Member
    Options
    newmeadow wrote: »
    shor0814 wrote: »
    usmcmp wrote: »
    A sign or designated zone doesn't stop people.

    I agree but because of Virginia Tech, I disagree that it should be allowed since the assailant there; would've been what's allowed to be armed: a student.

    He wasn't allowed to be armed yet he was armed how would allowing campus carry change this situation? Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying.

    Obviously the Virginia Tech assailant, planned his crime but if a student with the same motives, doesn't take the opportunity to think twice before acting; an instantaneous decision could occur more often. Meaning that a law abiding/sane student could walk in with no intention of intentionally harming someone but then lose their temper & then do so because of an insult, directed at them.

    I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the population is in enough control of their faculties not to just shoot anyone who annoys them.

    Also, college students are higher IQ and therefore have more impulse control. Also, by virtue of the fact that they've made their way to college, they have more to lose and would think twice before doing anything so stupid.

    I disagree concerning impulse control, the brain isn't fully developed until approximately our mid 20's. Peer pressure, underage drinking, alcohol/drug abuse, hazing/bullying, sexual assaults're all frequent incidents, among college students.
  • MissusMoon
    MissusMoon Posts: 1,900 Member
    Options
    Remember a week or two ago when the open carry folks turned tail and ran when someone shot at the police? And how the police weren't sure who to arrest?

    Real life experiences are far more complex than talking on the internet.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,716 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    shor0814 wrote: »
    usmcmp wrote: »
    A sign or designated zone doesn't stop people.

    I agree but because of Virginia Tech, I disagree that it should be allowed since the assailant there; would've been what's allowed to be armed: a student.

    He wasn't allowed to be armed yet he was armed how would allowing campus carry change this situation? Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying.

    Obviously the Virginia Tech assailant, planned his crime but if a student with the same motives, doesn't take the opportunity to think twice before acting; an instantaneous decision could occur more often. Meaning that a law abiding/sane student could walk in with no intention of intentionally harming someone but then lose their temper & then do so because of an insult, directed at them.
    Here is where I agree. We're not talking about adults with fully developed brains making decisions while fully understanding the consequences. We're speaking of 18-24 year olds. What if someone is drunk or high? Many times killings happen based on emotional trauma or distress.
    Also my concern would be, if any gun discharged occurred, even if it was to protect others, who's to say those shots don't injure innocents because they missed the intended target?

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


  • sunnybeaches105
    sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,831 Member
    Options
    JTGJTG wrote: »
    If students had been concealed-carrying on VA tech, would have been fewer casualties.

    However there wouldn't have been any casualties, if he couldn't obtain the weapon; by it not being available.

    You're right. It's working well in France and Germany. The reality is that this is a rather complex area and it's not made any easier by researcher bias. I'm personally of the opinion that concealed carry permits are a great idea but they need to have mandatory range time. It is far more difficult to hit a target under pressure than many people seem to believe.
  • CincyNeid
    CincyNeid Posts: 1,249 Member
    Options
    JTGJTG wrote: »
    If students had been concealed-carrying on VA tech, would have been fewer casualties.

    However there wouldn't have been any casualties, if he couldn't obtain the weapon; by it not being available.

    You're right. It's working well in France and Germany. The reality is that this is a rather complex area and it's not made any easier by researcher bias. I'm personally of the opinion that concealed carry permits are a great idea but they need to have mandatory range time. It is far more difficult to hit a target under pressure than many people seem to believe.

    Range time doesn't equal stressful environment. You need to take Level II training and sometimes up to level III training to really get your HR up and get your nerves working.
  • sunnybeaches105
    sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,831 Member
    Options
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    shor0814 wrote: »
    usmcmp wrote: »
    A sign or designated zone doesn't stop people.

    I agree but because of Virginia Tech, I disagree that it should be allowed since the assailant there; would've been what's allowed to be armed: a student.

    He wasn't allowed to be armed yet he was armed how would allowing campus carry change this situation? Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying.

    Obviously the Virginia Tech assailant, planned his crime but if a student with the same motives, doesn't take the opportunity to think twice before acting; an instantaneous decision could occur more often. Meaning that a law abiding/sane student could walk in with no intention of intentionally harming someone but then lose their temper & then do so because of an insult, directed at them.
    Here is where I agree. We're not talking about adults with fully developed brains making decisions while fully understanding the consequences. We're speaking of 18-24 year olds. What if someone is drunk or high? Many times killings happen based on emotional trauma or distress.
    Also my concern would be, if any gun discharged occurred, even if it was to protect others, who's to say those shots don't injure innocents because they missed the intended target?

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png



    And yet we took 18 year olds and let them die in Afghanistan. I'm not a fan of our age system for criminal responsibility, drinking, etc. and would prefer that we stop taking rights away from adults.
  • sunnybeaches105
    sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,831 Member
    Options
    CincyNeid wrote: »
    JTGJTG wrote: »
    If students had been concealed-carrying on VA tech, would have been fewer casualties.

    However there wouldn't have been any casualties, if he couldn't obtain the weapon; by it not being available.

    You're right. It's working well in France and Germany. The reality is that this is a rather complex area and it's not made any easier by researcher bias. I'm personally of the opinion that concealed carry permits are a great idea but they need to have mandatory range time. It is far more difficult to hit a target under pressure than many people seem to believe.

    Range time doesn't equal stressful environment. You need to take Level II training and sometimes up to level III training to really get your HR up and get your nerves working.

    I don't disagree.
  • JeromeBarry1
    JeromeBarry1 Posts: 10,181 Member
    Options
    CincyNeid wrote: »
    MissusMoon wrote: »
    Remember a week or two ago when the open carry folks turned tail and ran when someone shot at the police? And how the police weren't sure who to arrest?

    Real life experiences are far more complex than talking on the internet.


    He didn't tuck tail and run. He went to the PD and turned his gun in until everything was done and over with the PD to show he wasn't a threat.

    That was his second response. His first response was to tuck and run. The dozens of other long gun carrying demonstrators also ran and did not make any effort to assist police.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    Options
    newmeadow wrote: »
    shor0814 wrote: »
    usmcmp wrote: »
    A sign or designated zone doesn't stop people.

    I agree but because of Virginia Tech, I disagree that it should be allowed since the assailant there; would've been what's allowed to be armed: a student.

    He wasn't allowed to be armed yet he was armed how would allowing campus carry change this situation? Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying.

    Obviously the Virginia Tech assailant, planned his crime but if a student with the same motives, doesn't take the opportunity to think twice before acting; an instantaneous decision could occur more often. Meaning that a law abiding/sane student could walk in with no intention of intentionally harming someone but then lose their temper & then do so because of an insult, directed at them.

    I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the population is in enough control of their faculties not to just shoot anyone who annoys them.

    Also, college students are higher IQ and therefore have more impulse control. Also, by virtue of the fact that they've made their way to college, they have more to lose and would think twice before doing anything so stupid.

    This was not my experience in college...the majority went nuts drinking copious amounts of alcohol, doing drugs, and *kitten*!ng each others brains out...the impulse control was totally stellar...
  • CincyNeid
    CincyNeid Posts: 1,249 Member
    Options
    CincyNeid wrote: »
    JTGJTG wrote: »
    If students had been concealed-carrying on VA tech, would have been fewer casualties.

    However there wouldn't have been any casualties, if he couldn't obtain the weapon; by it not being available.

    You're right. It's working well in France and Germany. The reality is that this is a rather complex area and it's not made any easier by researcher bias. I'm personally of the opinion that concealed carry permits are a great idea but they need to have mandatory range time. It is far more difficult to hit a target under pressure than many people seem to believe.

    Range time doesn't equal stressful environment. You need to take Level II training and sometimes up to level III training to really get your HR up and get your nerves working.

    I don't disagree.

    I do see an issue with people going to the CHL classes, going to the range, buying their Bodyguard and thinking they're good to go. It's not like that at all. You need more.
  • DeficitDuchess
    DeficitDuchess Posts: 3,099 Member
    Options
    newmeadow wrote: »
    newmeadow wrote: »
    shor0814 wrote: »
    usmcmp wrote: »
    A sign or designated zone doesn't stop people.

    I agree but because of Virginia Tech, I disagree that it should be allowed since the assailant there; would've been what's allowed to be armed: a student.

    He wasn't allowed to be armed yet he was armed how would allowing campus carry change this situation? Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying.

    Obviously the Virginia Tech assailant, planned his crime but if a student with the same motives, doesn't take the opportunity to think twice before acting; an instantaneous decision could occur more often. Meaning that a law abiding/sane student could walk in with no intention of intentionally harming someone but then lose their temper & then do so because of an insult, directed at them.

    I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the population is in enough control of their faculties not to just shoot anyone who annoys them.

    Also, college students are higher IQ and therefore have more impulse control. Also, by virtue of the fact that they've made their way to college, they have more to lose and would think twice before doing anything so stupid.

    I disagree concerning impulse control, the brain isn't fully developed until approximately our mid 20's. Peer pressure, underage drinking, alcohol/drug abuse, hazing/bullying, sexual assaults're all frequent incidents, among college students.

    If guns are allowed to be carried by college students, it's probably the more conservatively inclined students who would make the effort to get licensed and carry them. And for the right reasons. They would less likely be the drunks, the recreational drug users, the rapists and the bullies who have underdeveloped brains but are past the age of consent. And probably, the student drunks, student drug users, student rapists and student bullies would think twice before aggressing against the legally armed students who want nothing to do with that behavior or the under developed individuals who engage in it.

    Conservative/liberal, has nothing to do with brain development; via age.
  • sunnybeaches105
    sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,831 Member
    Options
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    newmeadow wrote: »
    shor0814 wrote: »
    usmcmp wrote: »
    A sign or designated zone doesn't stop people.

    I agree but because of Virginia Tech, I disagree that it should be allowed since the assailant there; would've been what's allowed to be armed: a student.

    He wasn't allowed to be armed yet he was armed how would allowing campus carry change this situation? Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying.

    Obviously the Virginia Tech assailant, planned his crime but if a student with the same motives, doesn't take the opportunity to think twice before acting; an instantaneous decision could occur more often. Meaning that a law abiding/sane student could walk in with no intention of intentionally harming someone but then lose their temper & then do so because of an insult, directed at them.

    I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the population is in enough control of their faculties not to just shoot anyone who annoys them.

    Also, college students are higher IQ and therefore have more impulse control. Also, by virtue of the fact that they've made their way to college, they have more to lose and would think twice before doing anything so stupid.

    This was not my experience in college...the majority went nuts drinking copious amounts of alcohol, doing drugs, and *kitten*!ng each others brains out...the impulse control was totally stellar...

    I had a very different experience and a concealed permit at that time. I probably drink more now than I did back then. I had to keep my weapon in my car though.
  • DeficitDuchess
    DeficitDuchess Posts: 3,099 Member
    Options
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    shor0814 wrote: »
    usmcmp wrote: »
    A sign or designated zone doesn't stop people.

    I agree but because of Virginia Tech, I disagree that it should be allowed since the assailant there; would've been what's allowed to be armed: a student.

    He wasn't allowed to be armed yet he was armed how would allowing campus carry change this situation? Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying.

    Obviously the Virginia Tech assailant, planned his crime but if a student with the same motives, doesn't take the opportunity to think twice before acting; an instantaneous decision could occur more often. Meaning that a law abiding/sane student could walk in with no intention of intentionally harming someone but then lose their temper & then do so because of an insult, directed at them.
    Here is where I agree. We're not talking about adults with fully developed brains making decisions while fully understanding the consequences. We're speaking of 18-24 year olds. What if someone is drunk or high? Many times killings happen based on emotional trauma or distress.
    Also my concern would be, if any gun discharged occurred, even if it was to protect others, who's to say those shots don't injure innocents because they missed the intended target?

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png



    Also guns're accidentally fired!
  • CincyNeid
    CincyNeid Posts: 1,249 Member
    Options

    Also guns're accidentally fired!

    If the gun is in a holster with a trigger guard the chances of that happening are under 1% with a modern firearm.
  • DeficitDuchess
    DeficitDuchess Posts: 3,099 Member
    edited July 2016
    Options
    CincyNeid wrote: »
    JTGJTG wrote: »
    If students had been concealed-carrying on VA tech, would have been fewer casualties.

    However there wouldn't have been any casualties, if he couldn't obtain the weapon; by it not being available.

    You're right. It's working well in France and Germany. The reality is that this is a rather complex area and it's not made any easier by researcher bias. I'm personally of the opinion that concealed carry permits are a great idea but they need to have mandatory range time. It is far more difficult to hit a target under pressure than many people seem to believe.

    Range time doesn't equal stressful environment. You need to take Level II training and sometimes up to level III training to really get your HR up and get your nerves working.

    Does this training only involve temporary stressful moments or does it also involve, how to react to life altering scenarios, such as a spouse wanting a divorce and/or an employee losing their job because those're the significant events, that lead to law abiding/sane gun owners snapping & executing their families/coworkers & none of the background checks you described passing, can account for these future possibilities. Also some criminals just haven't been caught yet, thus no criminal record; to check upon.
  • sunnybeaches105
    sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,831 Member
    Options
    CincyNeid wrote: »

    Also guns're accidentally fired!

    If the gun is in a holster with a trigger guard the chances of that happening are under 1% with a modern firearm.

    I've seen this only happen once in my life, and it was due to an old and worn out firearm that shouldn't have been in use. We knew it was a PoS, so it was only loaded at the range and sure enough, it went off. Contrast that to tens of thousands of rounds fired, a couple of drops, and at least one motorcycle accident with an armed rider. I'd argue it's much less than 1%.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    Options
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    newmeadow wrote: »
    shor0814 wrote: »
    usmcmp wrote: »
    A sign or designated zone doesn't stop people.

    I agree but because of Virginia Tech, I disagree that it should be allowed since the assailant there; would've been what's allowed to be armed: a student.

    He wasn't allowed to be armed yet he was armed how would allowing campus carry change this situation? Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying.

    Obviously the Virginia Tech assailant, planned his crime but if a student with the same motives, doesn't take the opportunity to think twice before acting; an instantaneous decision could occur more often. Meaning that a law abiding/sane student could walk in with no intention of intentionally harming someone but then lose their temper & then do so because of an insult, directed at them.

    I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the population is in enough control of their faculties not to just shoot anyone who annoys them.

    Also, college students are higher IQ and therefore have more impulse control. Also, by virtue of the fact that they've made their way to college, they have more to lose and would think twice before doing anything so stupid.

    This was not my experience in college...the majority went nuts drinking copious amounts of alcohol, doing drugs, and *kitten*!ng each others brains out...the impulse control was totally stellar...

    I had a very different experience and a concealed permit at that time. I probably drink more now than I did back then. I had to keep my weapon in my car though.

    I've had a concealed permit for as long as I can remember and I'm a former Marine...I'm just saying their were a lot of people at my college who were nowhere near responsible enough to just willy nilly carry fire arms around...particularly as there really aren't any rules or requirements to open carry...nobody is required to go to any kind of training, etc. Just saying there are a *kitten* ton of just irresponsible people out there, particularly in their late teens and early 20s.