My Recent Fox News and CNN Appearances (Guns on College Campuses)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

You people think nothing of picking up a gun and shooting anyone because [insert your favorite reason here.

Oh, please... quit with the kneejerk and use some logic for a change. First off, define your terms - are you talking about the CCW holders (who, in whole, are more law-abiding than the police, or are you talking about criminals?

Quote

Once again, it is a sad state for society to feel they wake up each morning and arm themselves before they venture out there into the world.

*soft violins playing "My Heart Bleeds For You"*

By your (il)logic, everyone who has a fire extinguisher in their house/car is secretly wanting to set fires so they have an excuse to use it...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

COMMON SENSE.

Shall I explain it to you mate? I never suspected you were lacking any but.....

Please do...we're still waiting on the proof that the gun causes the crime.

You've got an uphill battle, here... since guns are only used in ~25% of all violent crime in the US.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Changing the topic. According to the FBI UCR (Table 38 for those interested in checking MY claim) the 18-24 year age group represents, by far, the greatest rate of both violent crime and homicides. Trying to use CCW data for the population as a whole to justify arming college students who exactly fit in this age range is totally bogus.

There's no question that most murders are young male felons killing other young male felons. But what has that got to do with college students? They may share the same age, but that's about it. (ADD: after all, just a few postings ago you told us there are only ~20 homicides on campus, out of > 10,000)

BTW, he didn't withdraw his claim, he corrected the intended verbiage. I suspect it doesn't make a difference, but it doesn't really matter.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

By your (il)logic, everyone who has a fire extinguisher in their house/car is secretly wanting to set fires so they have an excuse to use it...

while i'm in your camp on the CCW issue and have no 'secret desire' to set fires, I did have a heating element burn out in my dishwasher recently and set fire to the lenolium.. while it was small enough I COULD have stepped it out (was wearing boots at the time even) the shiny red fire extinguisher was right there just Begging to be used so....

unfortunately my faith in humanity is low enough I can easily see people using the same sort of "reasoning" to use a firearm when its not really needed.

By parallel example I'll also point to the 'rash' of tazer incidents (by supposedly 'trained law enforcement officers') lately that were not really necessary either..

people LOVE to use their tools (buy any man a hammer and see) and the overall respect for life is declining...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

OK, I will give you "applicant". I meant those 'approved'. Do you want to debate those approved against the rest of the population? You know, as far as which are more law abiding?

As I replied to him, you should be able to obtain this information on a state by state basis. They give summary reports each year on applications, renewals, and revocations. But it's really not your obligation to do so. And the relevance of the data is questionable at best.

You are right. That data does exist as extensive studies have been done. But, as per his norm, he wanted to play a word game as speak to the topic

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Hi Zen -

I don't disagree with your points as a generality, rather with his characterization of all CCW holders as triggerhappy morons, when the overwhelming evidence points to exactly the opposite.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

OK, I will give you "applicant". I meant those 'approved'. Do you want to debate those approved against the rest of the population? You know, as far as which are more law abiding?

As I replied to him, you should be able to obtain this information on a state by state basis. They give summary reports each year on applications, renewals, and revocations. But it's really not your obligation to do so. And the relevance of the data is questionable at best.

You are right. That data does exist as extensive studies have been done. But, as per his norm, he wanted to play a word game as speak to the topic

You are the one playing word games. You made a claim, then when challenged to provide data to support it, were totally unable to do so. Then you said you meant something else, and now you're back to your original but still unsubstantiated claim.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Changing the topic. According to the FBI UCR (Table 38 for those interested in checking MY claim) the 18-24 year age group represents, by far, the greatest rate of both violent crime and homicides. Trying to use CCW data for the population as a whole to justify arming college students who exactly fit in this age range is totally bogus.

There's no question that most murders are young male felons killing other young male felons. But what has that got to do with college students? They may share the same age, but that's about it. (ADD: after all, just a few postings ago you told us there are only ~20 homicides on campus, out of > 10,000)

BTW, he didn't withdraw his claim, he corrected the intended verbiage. I suspect it doesn't make a difference, but it doesn't really matter.

1 in 400 violent crimes on college campuses (where, for the most part, guns are unavailable) end up in a fatality. 1 in 90 violent crimes in the country as a whole (where guns are readily available) end up in a fatality, and most of those fatalities are by gunshot. That's a BIG difference, especially considering that overall, 18-24 year olds are the most likely to commit murder.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I don't disagree with your points as a generality, rather with his characterization of all CCW holders as triggerhappy morons, when the overwhelming evidence points to exactly the opposite.

Sometimes it's interesting how other people view things. I found this map: "Right to Carry Law 2006", linked in an earlier thread surprising. To listen to much of the rhetoric here, one would easily come to the conclusion that the only State in which one can have a CCW is Texas ... but no, per concealedcampus.org *forty* states (80%) allow CCW. Eight of the 10 remaining have some limited CCW (96%).

[tongue firmly planted in cheek]
What do all y'all usually say to Europeans who don't like US foreign policies?
[/tongue firmly planted in cheek]

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[AWL71 0]

Quote

You are missing the entire point I make.

You people in the USA (and some of it has spilled over here into Canada) have created a culture where you as individuals put yourself ahead of your fellow citizens. You people think nothing of picking up a gun and shooting anyone because [insert your favorite reason here]. It is your reality. You created it. Your guns are going now here because enough of you feel that it is your right to walk around armed to the teeth ready to beat that other guy to the trigger.

Once again, it is a sad state for society to feel they wake up each morning and arm themselves before they venture out there into the world. You can have your guns. I am not calling for anyone to remove them from you. Just remember that not everyone feels the same way that you do.

Let the flames begin. We live in a "ME ME ME" society!!!

I don't get the correlation you are trying to make between CCW and the "Me" scoiety. There is no shortage of the me. me me mentality but those are not the type of people carrying concealed. I carry concealed from time to time and if my CCW allows me to protect myself and others I will. I would pull the trigger as a last resort. Having people carry concealed is good for all of us. How often do you hear about a CCW holder going on a shooting spree? We have plenty of criminals with guns so the more CCW we have the better.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

[tongue firmly planted in cheek]
What do all y'all usually say to Europeans who don't like US foreign policies?
[/tongue firmly planted in cheek]

VR/Marg

Usually "Kiss my ass"... why?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Clownburner 0]

It's a good point. Another thing to consider is that in the majority of the states allowing CCW, it is NOT against the law to carry a licensed and concealed weapon on campus. It does usually violate school policy, which will get you fired or expelled.

Now, think about it. Regardless of the spurious arguments given here, if more guns caused more crime (in which case, by the way, all of mine are defective), the states that passed Shall-Issue CCW laws should have seen crime rates go up, right? Nope, didn't happen. We have almost 10 years of data from 40 states proving that. So, are CCW applicants more law-abiding then the general public? Doesn't matter - since only those approved, who pass a thorough background check and training, are going to actually be carrying weapons legally. People who know they won't pass a background check are unlikely to apply, but they really don't matter for the sake of this argument.

Using campus crime rate statistics and comparing them to the general crime rate is misleading, as it doesn't accurately reflect the fact that 1) much violent crime on campus never gets 'officially' reported, and 2) saying that it's because of the lack of guns is making a huge assumption - namely that the campus 'rules' against guns actually reduce the number of guns on campus - which is an unproven assertion, and 3) assuming it has more to do with guns than with education and social background. Compare the rate of violent crime on campus with the rate of violent crime among 18-24 year-old people with college educations, and you have something to talk about. But you can't do that, because the rate of violent crime on and off campus is almost the same for the same social demographics. Comparing the crime rate at USC, for example, with the crime rate in the crappy neighborhoods right around it makes about as much sense.

Let's all drop the straw arguments and look at the reality: Madmen prefer victims who won't fight back.

What do you think the rate of school shootings would be if every campus in the country posted trained, armed guards at the entrance to every classroom?

Gee, that's too expensive, and might make people think we lived in a police state.

What if we trained and armed a small population of teachers, professors, staff, and older students who could pass an extensive background check, and let everyone know that some of the classrooms had legally armed people watching over them? Would that have a similar effect?

I wonder.

You can't make all the guns in the world magically go away. That's a fantasy. Banning guns doesn't reduce violent crime, that's been proven by experience. I'm not sure why some of you dispute that statistic but then say that because campus crimes are less often fatal than crack-house violence, it proves guns are the problem. Wishful thinking, maybe?

I do know, however, that cowering under a desk, waiting for a madman to find and kill you, is unlikely to be the best way to prevent future campus violence.

7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez
"I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth

[nerdgirl 0]

I suspect you're directing your rhetoric toward the wrong person.

R/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Douva 0]

I thought I'd add a little fuel to the fire.

I don't particularly care for having an interview I gave orally published in a printed publication, because speaking doesn't allow time for proofreading and because vocal inflection doesn't translate into print, but nonetheless, I thought some of you might like to see this interview I gave to Newsweek. I was under the impression the author was simply researching a story and didn't realize that she'd be printing the interview basically word-for-word.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/112174/page/1

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[mnealtx 0]

Great job!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Using campus crime rate statistics and comparing them to the general crime rate is misleading, as it doesn't accurately reflect the fact that 1) much violent crime on campus never gets 'officially' reported,

but HOMICIDES get reported.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

It is a proven fact that CCW applicants are the most law abiding. That is a stat worth taking note of.

You mean law abiding like the poster in a different thread who said he doesn't give a shit about stupid mall rent-a-cops cause with the right clothing and the right holster they can't notice he is carrying?

That kind of law abiding?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

OK, I will give you "applicant". I meant those 'approved'. Do you want to debate those approved against the rest of the population? You know, as far as which are more law abiding?

As I replied to him, you should be able to obtain this information on a state by state basis. They give summary reports each year on applications, renewals, and revocations. But it's really not your obligation to do so. And the relevance of the data is questionable at best.

You are right. That data does exist as extensive studies have been done. But, as per his norm, he wanted to play a word game as speak to the topic

You are the one playing word games. You made a claim, then when challenged to provide data to support it, were totally unable to do so. Then you said you meant something else, and now you're back to your original but still unsubstantiated claim.

No, I agreed with you sir

As far as unsubstantiated, well, that is your problem

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

So? Depends on the signage in a lot of places, from my understanding.

Example: In Texas, you can put up as many "no guns" signs as you want - unless they follow a specific format and phrasing, they are invalid and I can carry if I please.

But, yes, by all means... continue to quibble over the tiny details to try and prove your point - all it does is reinforce the fact that the main arguments against it are bullshit.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

So? Depends on the signage in a lot of places, from my understanding.

Your instant defense leads me to believe you see verbiage like that as law abiding.

I see it as representative of a "I don't givce a fuck about laws and do what I want" kind of attitude, so we may be mismatched as to what we see as law abiding.

(and I still seriously wonder if CCW holders run less red lights and make less rolling stops at a stop sign)

[Channman 2]

Quote

""""

LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH BRAVO!! ;) (my JSplugin is screwed uP)

dont do me that same favor please.!

While being a Christian believer, I wouldnt have a problem putting someone down with a shot to the leg first (depending on situation first), but if would be bad guy still wants to firefight after that, he/she can expect another shot either in a leg or perhaps the fatal one!

peace oandbtw.... KEEP YR POWDER DRY!!

:dd

I'm thinking of the Law Suits that would follow after the shot to the leg. Ten of Thousands of dollars for compensation for Pain and Suffering and so on and so on. Would it not be far cheaper to provide the fatal shot or shots for all involved?

[Clownburner 0]

Quote

I suspect you're directing your rhetoric toward the wrong person.

R/Marg

Didn't mean for that to be directed at you, specifically, except the first part where I said "Good point."

7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez
"I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth

[Clownburner 0]

Quote

If homicides are reported (as they always are) but other violent campus crimes are underreported as you claim, why is the ratio of homicides:violent crimes LOWER on campuses that elsewhere.

I did, in the same paragraph. Demographics. Wealthy, well-educated college kids commit less crime than people in the same age bracket who are under-educated, impoverished, and from socially-depressed areas. There are a thousand studies proving this, and you can google as well as I can. It has nothing to do with access to weapons. Stop cherry-picking responses to provoke people, you should know better.

7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez
"I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

If homicides are reported (as they always are) but other violent campus crimes are underreported as you claim, why is the ratio of homicides:violent crimes LOWER on campuses that elsewhere.

I did, in the same paragraph. Demographics. Wealthy, well-educated college kids commit less crime than people in the same age bracket who are under-educated, impoverished, and from socially-depressed areas. There are a thousand studies proving this, and you can google as well as I can. It has nothing to do with access to weapons. Stop cherry-picking responses to provoke people, you should know better.

No, those factors may argue for a lower overall crime rate on campuses, but not the ratio of homicides to total violent crime.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

so are you back to claiming colleges are full of drunken killers, or not? The number is 20 - is that a bad number or a good one?