[quote]pushharder wrote:
It’s not about the volatility of the courts but rather the security, outliers notwithstanding.[/quote]
Many campus PD’s are more heavily armed and better trained than their local counterparts.[/quote]
And?[/quote]
I’m just playing devil’s advocate. So Push, what do you propose students do on campus? Conceal carry regardless of the potentially severe academic and legal consequences? Or take a more pragmatic, subtle approach to self defense while they are on university grounds?
Should Amanda Collins just shrug her shoulders and say to herself, “Better luck next time?”
You are a spineless fool not to take responsibility for your personal defense and rather trust that college police forces (what happens when your travel off campus, by the way?) and statistics to care for you. Not to mention that many of us, as Double Duce mentioned, feel the moral obligation to help protect those around us, and that does not include just friends or family.
[/quote]
It was about time for your argument to breakdown, you already played your gold bar card. You assume that I entrust others with my protection. Let me ask you push, how many times have you had to make use of a firearm against another person?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
So, if I’m following your line of thinking, since the % of people affected is so low there isn’t a need for the 2nd ammendement or at least concel carry, correct?
As a counter to your argument I would say then we don’t need to change the meaning of marriage since the gay population is estimated to be around 2% of the population, correct?
NOTE: I’m not trying to turn this into a marriage debate. My point is based off Beefs argument, which is based of the % affected. [/quote]
This would be correct if I was against gun ownership altogether. I am in favor of gun control. Currently the gun show loop undermines the background check process and the concealed carry process needs to be more stringent. There are other devices people can carry for self-defense that do not necessarily need to be firearms. [/quote]
This is where I get confused I guess because MD is a shitty state. You can’t buy a hand gun in MD without a background chekc period. You could (prior to this week) buy an “assault” weapon anywhere in the state without one, but no more. Getting a concel carry permit in MD was almost impossible (still is); however, the concel carry law in MD was ruled against recently (few months ago). Either way it is still very difficult to get a carry permit in MD.
All that being said, Baltmore is one of the MOST VIOLENT places in the country. When I worked in charm city a tazer/peeper spray would have probably gotten me lauged at, then beat nearly to death, and then probably shot. Do you think a gange member is going to think twice about mugging you if you pull out mace? What about a gun?
Guns are the BEST self defense instruments currently available, why would you ask people to utilize second rate defensive instruments?
I see you continue with your campus/courtroom analogy which you insist you never made. "But, but, but, you’ve got to understand ‘magnitude’, dude!" Ummm…sure, pal.
[/quote]
Jesus Christ.
It is now clear to me that you need to start learning about what an analogy is and what an analogy isn’t, and I mean beginning with the very fundamentals of logic. I will explain this to you as soon as you do the following:
Tell me exactly what is the direct analogy I’ve drawn. Express it in the formal A is to B as C is to D.[/quote]
Joseph Smith.
It is now clear to me that you need to understand the following (repeated):
In any conceivably reasonable scenario a college campus can never “lock down” itself with metal detectors, X-ray equipment and such like a courtroom or airport can.
There are thousands of Amanda Collins type rape victims all over the 50 states every single year. None of them have been raped in courtrooms. Many of them have been raped on college campuses that have these “impressive” police departments with which all “non-paranoid” people should place their undying trust.
[/quote]
No no.
You’ve been attacking me for my “analogy” over the course of the past two pages.
Express this analogy to me in formal terms. A is to B as C is to D.
Let’s see it.[/quote]
We’ve had nothing but courtroom/campus, courtroom/campus, courtroom/campus, courtroom/campus from you for awhile.
How about comparing courtrooms with TSA screened airport areas? If you did that you’d have a valid comparison.
A university campus, regardless of its simply “marvelous” (said in my best Billy Crystal impression) police department is a massively porous environment in terms of security and contains no significant deterrent to assault.
[/quote]
You have now repeatedly accused me of analogizing courtrooms and campuses, chiding me for doing so after having said that I don’t believe the two to be directly analogous.
Put your money where your mouth is. Express to me this analogy that I’ve been drawing. Express it in the proper form: A is to B as C is to D.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
It’s not about the volatility of the courts but rather the security, outliers notwithstanding.[/quote]
Many campus PD’s are more heavily armed and better trained than their local counterparts.[/quote]
And?[/quote]
I’m just playing devil’s advocate. So Push, what do you propose students do on campus? Conceal carry regardless of the potentially severe academic and legal consequences? Or take a more pragmatic, subtle approach to self defense while they are on university grounds?[/quote]
This notion that a university that receives federal money cannot impose restrictions on its students that would be deemed unconstitutional were they imposed by the federal government upon the American people is absolutely ridiculous. Matriculation at a university is in many ways a partial surrender of freedoms: to take one of thousands of examples, I was subjected to what under normal circumstances would have very quickly been deemed unreasonable searches throughout the two years during which I lived as an undergraduate on a college campus (a living situation, by the way, that was mandated). Oftentimes–during exams, for example–First Amendment rights are revoked, with the express understanding that to speak freely is to invite expulsion from the university. Stop pretending otherwise.
As an aside–and this doesn’t matter at all to my argument, so please don’t pretend that my point hinges on this, but for the record: I do believe that if you can look at the violent crime rate on the typical college campus–80 times lower than the national average–and conclude that campuses are dangerous enough that it is unreasonable to disallow people from carrying guns for self defense–with the explicit understanding that, if they find that to be an unreasonable demand, they are in no way obligated to matriculate–then you are an unreasonably fearful person. I’ve walked though Juarez unarmed, I’m pretty sure you can handle Harvard yard.
Would some people be saved from murder and sexual assault by allowing them to carry? Yes. This is where Push and his appeal to emotion with rape cases comes in–an appeal to emotion, by the way, that he would rightfully reject outright were it to take the form of, for example, “if ‘assault rifles’ and high-capacity magazines were not legally available for purchase, Adam Lanza may not have been able to kill so many children. Do you want children to die? Huh? Heartless bastard.”
So–yes, some indeterminate but probably small number of people who were killed/raped on a college campus over the course of the past ten years would have been better off had their university allowed them to store and carry firearms.
But I believe that many, many more lives would have been be lost, because college students are not responsible enough to be entrusted with the safe and appropriate storage and handling of deadly weapons. Because the people who run universities are not obligated to afford all of the rights to their students which are afforded by the American government to the American people pursuant to the Bill of Rights, it’s absolutely acceptable for the decision-making body of an American university to ban guns from campus, if they agree with me (which they do, overwhelmingly).
[quote]smh23 wrote: This notion that a university that receives federal money cannot impose restrictions on its students that would be deemed unconstitutional were they imposed by the federal government upon the American people is absolutely ridiculous. Matriculation at a university is in many ways a partial surrender of freedoms: to take one of thousands of examples, I was subjected to what under normal circumstances would have very quickly been deemed unreasonable searches throughout the two years during which I lived as an undergraduate on a college campus (a living situation, by the way, that was mandated). Oftentimes–during exams, for example–First Amendment rights are revoked, with the express understanding that to speak freely is to invite expulsion from the university. Stop pretending otherwise.
[/quote]
I would argue that you were illegally searched. Can a land lord force his way into your apartment, can the bank force their way into your home, or can the police force their way into your home without reasonable cause? The answer is no, why does this change at college?
Your exam argument is compelling, but in this case your 1st ammendment rigths weren’t infringed upon. Instead their were consequences if you used your 1st ammendment rights. To me there is a difference there. Making anywhere a non gun zone is a direct infrignment of the 2nd ammendment. Instead carry shoudl be legal and like in any other situation the responsible use of that weapon is on the owner of the weapon. In this way your example and mine would match each other. Consequences for inappropriate actions.
I don’t really want to get in the middle of you and Push here, but the two situations are differnt. Adam broke multiple laws and acted irresponsibly. Amanda did not. Why are we punsishing people liek Amanda because of the actions of people like Adan?
[quote]
So–yes, some indeterminate but probably small number of people who were killed/raped on a college campus over the course of the past ten years would have been better off had their university allowed them to store and carry firearms.
But I believe that many, many more lives would have been be lost, because college students are not responsible enough to be entrusted with the safe and appropriate storage and handling of deadly weapons. Because the people who run universities are not obligated to afford all of the rights to their students which are afforded by the American government to the American people pursuant to the Bill of Rights, it’s absolutely acceptable for the decision-making body of an American university to ban guns from campus, if they agree with me (which they do, overwhelmingly).[/quote]
Young men, 18-22, have secured America for 200+ years. They’ve fought in EVERY major war and minor conflict. Many of this age have families and stable jobs. If this age group can’t handle weapons I think we have a far greater problem than gun control can fix.
I also don’t think university officials shoudl be able to infringe on consitutional rights anymore so than businesses, the government, or the people. What, in your eyes, makes them special?
“Because the people who run universities are not obligated to afford all of the rights to their students which are afforded by the American government to the American people pursuant to the Bill of Rights”
Can you explain this further? Why would colleges/universities not have to follow the bill of rights like everyone else?
Young men, 18-22, have secured America for 200+ years. They’ve fought in EVERY major war and minor conflict. Many of this age have families and stable jobs. If this age group can’t handle weapons I think we have a far greater problem than gun control can fix.
[/quote]
I am going to respond to your whole post, but I wanted to single this out: young men in the army and young men at college are two very different animals.
My argument is simply that, after having spent so much time around universities, I don’t believe that student bodies are responsible enough to own weapons. I don’t think the same thing about the military, or about society at large. I think it about college kids.
Young men, 18-22, have secured America for 200+ years. They’ve fought in EVERY major war and minor conflict. Many of this age have families and stable jobs. If this age group can’t handle weapons I think we have a far greater problem than gun control can fix.
[/quote]
I am going to respond to your whole post, but I wanted to single this out: young men in the army and young men at college are two very different animals.
My argument is simply that, after having spent so much time around universities, I don’t believe that student bodies are responsible enough to own weapons. I don’t think the same thing about the military, or about society at large. I think it about college kids.[/quote]
We must be doing something terribly wrong if college age ADULTS can’t handle guns, but it’s your opinion. I’m not going to argue about it.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Your exam argument is compelling, but in this case your 1st ammendment rigths weren’t infringed upon. Instead their were consequences if you used your 1st ammendment rights. To me there is a difference there. Making anywhere a non gun zone is a direct infrignment of the 2nd ammendment. Instead carry shoudl be legal and like in any other situation the responsible use of that weapon is on the owner of the weapon. In this way your example and mine would match each other. Consequences for inappropriate actions.
[/quote]
This is a good and nuanced point, but I will counter with this: the First Amendment protects not just from prior restraint but also from punitive measures after the right to speech has been exercised. Other than speech intended to incite imminent lawless action, it is unconstitutional for the state to punish a citizen for the content of their verbal expressions. It is a violation of my First Amendment right, for example, not only for the government to prevent me from publishing this post, but also for the government to imprison me for having published it.
If my First Amendment rights were perfectly intact as a college student matriculated at a major university, then the state–and in Push’s eyes, the university’s management and administration is an extension of the state, so long as the said university has accepted federal money–would not under any circumstances be permitted to administer to me a punishment for having exercised my right to free speech during an exam.
By punishment, we mean expulsion–the same punishment, by the way, that we’re talking about when we talk about the banning of guns.
Young men, 18-22, have secured America for 200+ years. They’ve fought in EVERY major war and minor conflict. Many of this age have families and stable jobs. If this age group can’t handle weapons I think we have a far greater problem than gun control can fix.
[/quote]
I am going to respond to your whole post, but I wanted to single this out: young men in the army and young men at college are two very different animals.
My argument is simply that, after having spent so much time around universities, I don’t believe that student bodies are responsible enough to own weapons. I don’t think the same thing about the military, or about society at large. I think it about college kids.[/quote]
We must be doing something terribly wrong if college age ADULTS can’t handle guns, but it’s your opinion. I’m not going to argue about it. [/quote]
Yes something is terribly wrong. College typically postpones responsibility so I don’t think he is too far off in his assessment.