kallend 2,113 #51 February 15, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Until that point, it looks like allowing disarmed victim zones is a bigger mistake. I'm not particularly gun-o-phobic, so I don't have a strong disagreement with this comment. I just wonder if allowing concealed carry on campus is the panacea some seem to think. To me, it seems a better solution than what we have now. The BEST solution is to keep guns away from loonies, something you oppose. Quote Quote In the incident the OP linked, someone pulled a gun during a faculty meeting and killed/injured several people. Would anything have been different had someone had a concealed weapon? Someone would at least have had a CHANCE to defend themself. Quote If someone can walk into a Seattle coffee shop and kill four police officers, officers who were well armed and trained to deal with such situations, who can really believe that a bunch of University faculty (or basically any small group of untrained civilians caught off guard) would do significantly better? You seem to think that the badge makes police officers somehow immune to the distractions us mere mortals have to deal with. . That's lame. If trained police officers can't do it, what is the chance that a bunch of college staffers could do it. Your "solution" will always result in some fatalities, maybe a lot. However, as you already pointed out today in another thread, collateral damage doesn't bother you as long as you get what you want.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #52 February 15, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Until that point, it looks like allowing disarmed victim zones is a bigger mistake. I'm not particularly gun-o-phobic, so I don't have a strong disagreement with this comment. I just wonder if allowing concealed carry on campus is the panacea some seem to think. To me, it seems a better solution than what we have now. The BEST solution is to keep guns away from loonies, something you oppose. LIE. Quote Quote Quote If someone can walk into a Seattle coffee shop and kill four police officers, officers who were well armed and trained to deal with such situations, who can really believe that a bunch of University faculty (or basically any small group of untrained civilians caught off guard) would do significantly better? You seem to think that the badge makes police officers somehow immune to the distractions us mere mortals have to deal with. . That's lame. If trained police officers can't do it, what is the chance that a bunch of college staffers could do it. Better than the chance of praying you won't be the next one the killer shoots. It also disregards the fact that many gun owners actually put in MORE practice time than the police. Quote Your "solution" will always result in some fatalities, maybe a lot. However, as you already pointed out today in another thread, collateral damage doesn't bother you as long as you get what you want. You LIE. Show where I've said that collateral damage is ok. Prove it or withdraw it, Kallend.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #53 February 15, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Until that point, it looks like allowing disarmed victim zones is a bigger mistake. I'm not particularly gun-o-phobic, so I don't have a strong disagreement with this comment. I just wonder if allowing concealed carry on campus is the panacea some seem to think. To me, it seems a better solution than what we have now. The BEST solution is to keep guns away from loonies, something you oppose.I think this is a big mis-characterization on your part. What he and I oppose are the near total nobody gets guns solutions you have posted to before. NO, not a ban but damn close to it Quote Quote In the incident the OP linked, someone pulled a gun during a faculty meeting and killed/injured several people. Would anything have been different had someone had a concealed weapon? Someone would at least have had a CHANCE to defend themself. Quote If someone can walk into a Seattle coffee shop and kill four police officers, officers who were well armed and trained to deal with such situations, who can really believe that a bunch of University faculty (or basically any small group of untrained civilians caught off guard) would do significantly better? You seem to think that the badge makes police officers somehow immune to the distractions us mere mortals have to deal with. . That's lame. If trained police officers can't do it, what is the chance that a bunch of college staffers could do it.Ok, so just make everyone sitting ducks to be picked off at will Your "solution" will always result in some fatalities, maybe a lot. However, as you already pointed out today in another thread, collateral damage doesn't bother you as long as you get what you want.And removal or rights doesnt bother you as long as it is rights you dont care about. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #54 February 15, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Until that point, it looks like allowing disarmed victim zones is a bigger mistake. I'm not particularly gun-o-phobic, so I don't have a strong disagreement with this comment. I just wonder if allowing concealed carry on campus is the panacea some seem to think. To me, it seems a better solution than what we have now. The BEST solution is to keep guns away from loonies, something you oppose.I think this is a big mis-characterization on your part. What he and I oppose are the near total nobody gets guns solutions you have posted to before. NO, not a ban but damn close to it "LIE". I have not ever proposed a total or near total ban. I have gone out of my way to emphasize that I only want existing Constitutional laws properly enforced with respect to allowing CRIMINALS and UNSTABLE people to get guns. That means tightening up the feeble checks currently in place.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #55 February 15, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Until that point, it looks like allowing disarmed victim zones is a bigger mistake. I'm not particularly gun-o-phobic, so I don't have a strong disagreement with this comment. I just wonder if allowing concealed carry on campus is the panacea some seem to think. To me, it seems a better solution than what we have now. The BEST solution is to keep guns away from loonies, something you oppose.I think this is a big mis-characterization on your part. What he and I oppose are the near total nobody gets guns solutions you have posted to before. NO, not a ban but damn close to it "LIE". I have not ever proposed a total or near total ban. I have gone out of my way to emphasize that I only want existing Constitutional laws properly enforced with respect to allowing CRIMINALS and UNSTABLE people to get guns. That means tightening up the feeble checks currently in place. And you have never been able to offer a solution short or an outright ban Have you"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #56 February 15, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Until that point, it looks like allowing disarmed victim zones is a bigger mistake. I'm not particularly gun-o-phobic, so I don't have a strong disagreement with this comment. I just wonder if allowing concealed carry on campus is the panacea some seem to think. To me, it seems a better solution than what we have now. The BEST solution is to keep guns away from loonies, something you oppose.I think this is a big mis-characterization on your part. What he and I oppose are the near total nobody gets guns solutions you have posted to before. NO, not a ban but damn close to it "LIE". I have not ever proposed a total or near total ban. I have gone out of my way to emphasize that I only want existing Constitutional laws properly enforced with respect to allowing CRIMINALS and UNSTABLE people to get guns. That means tightening up the feeble checks currently in place. And you have never been able to offer a solution short or an outright ban Have you Yes. But I know you don't read posts, you just type responses and hit "Reply".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #57 February 15, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Until that point, it looks like allowing disarmed victim zones is a bigger mistake. I'm not particularly gun-o-phobic, so I don't have a strong disagreement with this comment. I just wonder if allowing concealed carry on campus is the panacea some seem to think. To me, it seems a better solution than what we have now. The BEST solution is to keep guns away from loonies, something you oppose.I think this is a big mis-characterization on your part. What he and I oppose are the near total nobody gets guns solutions you have posted to before. NO, not a ban but damn close to it "LIE". I have not ever proposed a total or near total ban. I have gone out of my way to emphasize that I only want existing Constitutional laws properly enforced with respect to allowing CRIMINALS and UNSTABLE people to get guns. That means tightening up the feeble checks currently in place. And you have never been able to offer a solution short or an outright ban Have you Yes. But I know you don't read posts, you just type responses and hit "Reply". thats why this reply, correct??"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #58 February 15, 2010 www.seattlepi.com/local/415416_tropper15.html Sometimes an armed, trained victim doesn't come out on top when the drunk has a gun.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,085 #59 February 15, 2010 >Sometimes an armed, trained victim doesn't come out on top when the >drunk has a gun. If the trooper had had a gun, this would never have happened. Damn gun-grabbers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #60 February 15, 2010 Quote >Sometimes an armed, trained victim doesn't come out on top when the >drunk has a gun. If the trooper had had a gun, this would never have happened. Damn gun-grabbers. Nothing is absoulute but, that is what you seem to be after "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #61 February 15, 2010 Quote "LIE". I have not ever proposed a total or near total ban. I have gone out of my way to emphasize that I only want existing Constitutional laws properly enforced with respect to allowing CRIMINALS and UNSTABLE people to get guns. That means tightening up the feeble checks currently in place. As you well know, the only ways to prevent this occurrences conclusively would require prior restraint, which most certainly is not Constitutional. Despite your repeated claims otherwise, you have not provided a solution that doesn't violate that, or existing privacy laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,085 #62 February 15, 2010 >Nothing is absoulute but, that is what you seem to be after Whoosh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #63 February 15, 2010 Quote I'm not particularly gun-o-phobic, so I don't have a strong disagreement with this comment. I just wonder if allowing concealed carry on campus is the panacea some seem to think. In the incident the OP linked, someone pulled a gun during a faculty meeting and killed/injured several people. Would anything have been different had someone had a concealed weapon? At this moment only 25% or so adults in USA own a gun. Generously assuming that one out of ten of them would get a concealed carry permit (a pro-gun paid advocate David Kopel said that very few people get concealed permit in Fla - the number was like 1-3%, so 10% is indeed generous assumption) we end up having maximum a 2.5% chance of someone with a concealed gun being present there - i.e. one out of 40 people may have a concealed gun. Not so much a deterrent. Also if the people worked together and know each others, it may be easy to find out those carriers. In some cases it is extremely easy as some gun owners are very loud about their gun ownership, so for a to-be murderer it wouldn't be a problem to figure those people out and shot them first - just in case.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #64 February 15, 2010 Quote . In some cases it is extremely easy as some gun owners are very loud about their gun ownership,. You don't say!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #65 February 15, 2010 Quote Quote I'm not particularly gun-o-phobic, so I don't have a strong disagreement with this comment. I just wonder if allowing concealed carry on campus is the panacea some seem to think. In the incident the OP linked, someone pulled a gun during a faculty meeting and killed/injured several people. Would anything have been different had someone had a concealed weapon? At this moment only 25% or so adults in USA own a gun. Generously assuming that one out of ten of them would get a concealed carry permit (a pro-gun paid advocate David Kopel said that very few people get concealed permit in Fla - the number was like 1-3%, so 10% is indeed generous assumption) we end up having maximum a 2.5% chance of someone with a concealed gun being present there - i.e. one out of 40 people may have a concealed gun. Not so much a deterrent. Also if the people worked together and know each others, it may be easy to find out those carriers. In some cases it is extremely easy as some gun owners are very loud about their gun ownership, so for a to-be murderer it wouldn't be a problem to figure those people out and shot them first - just in case. George dear... I think you will find that number a tad higher than 25%. Many people have them and just do not tell the "authorities" what they have. Its all legal too.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #66 February 15, 2010 Quote George dear... I think you will find that number a tad higher than 25%. Many people have them and just do not tell the "authorities" what they have. Its all legal too.. That's what Wikipedia states ("About 25% of the adults in the United States personally own a gun, the vast majority of them men"). I tried to find a more direct and recent reference, but failed. If you have a more relevant but unbiased reference, I'd like to check it too. NRA estimates (well, it just quotes BATFE so it's not even their own estimate) a 250M guns, giving roughtly 4 guns per a gun owner - which sounds quite realistic assumption. I wonder how many gun owners here have less than four guns?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #67 February 16, 2010 3min of googling found me this http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1743414020070417 Quote An estimated 34 percent of the citizens in the United States own firearms, and there are thought to be more than 200 million firearms in private hands a Reuters factbox posted around the time of the VA Tech shooting.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #68 February 16, 2010 Quote An estimated 34 percent of the citizens in the United States own firearms, and there are thought to be more than 200 million firearms in private hands I've seen this article during my search (as well as a bunch of others like on WikiAnswer). The problem is that it doesn't cite any reference to support those numbers.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #69 February 16, 2010 Quote >Nothing is absoulute but, that is what you seem to be after Whoosh. If you say so"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #70 February 16, 2010 Reuters. It's a reputable and unbiased news organization. what do you want?-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #71 February 16, 2010 Quote That's what Wikipedia states ("About 25% of the adults in the United States personally own a gun, the vast majority of them men"). I tried to find a more direct and recent reference, but failed. If you have a more relevant but unbiased reference, I'd like to check it too. Her point was that many estimates are likely to undercount. For example, who is going to tell a survey taker, someone who has your address, that you have firearms? Same problem with the defensive gun use surveys. No one in NYC is going to report using their illegal gun to successfully defend themselves. Which comes to point 2. Even if the 25% figure is close enough to accurate, that doesn't mean that it's true for Florida (or Texas!). Most of New Yorkers and of Illinois have limited or no practical right to own one. In CA, it's also somewhat less common. So you've removed tens of millions from the denominator. if only 1 in 40 does carry, does that mean no one is likely to be around in a public scene? No, just check the math for a classroom of 30 sharing the same birthday. It's not nearly so improbably, and that's 1 in 365. But as frequently pointed out to you, CCW holders are not deputies. They have a right and incentive to defend themselves. Others - not nearly so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #72 February 16, 2010 Quote Reuters. It's a reputable and unbiased news organization. what do you want? This is the source for the wikipedia article. You nearly have to take it on faith that the author represented the article correctly. Probably true, but can't tell what their method for determination was, or how important an emphasis it was. Or did they merely cite someone else? Cook, Philip J.; Ludwig, Jens (2003). Evaluating gun policy: effects on crime and violence. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. pp. s. 3,4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #73 February 16, 2010 Quote Quote An estimated 34 percent of the citizens in the United States own firearms, and there are thought to be more than 200 million firearms in private hands I've seen this article during my search (as well as a bunch of others like on WikiAnswer). The problem is that it doesn't cite any reference to support those numbers. The problem with your number is that it relies upon phone surveys. And many people, when asked by strangers over the phone if they own a gun, are going to say "no", even though that's not true. Such questions produce suspicion, and no one is looking for trouble, nor is it anyone's business. So phone surveys are always going to under-represent the true number. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 34 #74 February 16, 2010 As this happened in my home town, I'm going to put in my 2 cents. I would like to know what the fuck happened to the investigation into this professor's "accidental shooting" of her 18 year old brother when she was 20. That's the official record of the incident. But of course, there's a differing version, saying she discharged the shotgun 3 times, first into a wall, second into her brother, and third into a ceiling. Something stinks here. Not to mention the investigation into a pipe bomb mailed to some other professor. Somebody somewhere fucked up big time. "Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #75 February 16, 2010 Quote Reuters. It's a reputable and unbiased news organization. You do see the "source" they referred? Hardly unbiased!* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
