That is where profiling comes in... Oh wait... Not allowed to do that anymore...
You're not allowed to do so based on race/ethnicity/religion/etc. You are allowed to do it based on "neutral" (for lack of a better word) traits -- i.e., you can't say "that guy is likely to shoot up this place because he's black." You can say, "that guy is likely to shoot up this place because he's acting very agitated."
That is where profiling comes in... Oh wait... Not allowed to do that anymore...
You're not allowed to do so based on race/ethnicity/religion/etc. You are allowed to do it based on "neutral" (for lack of a better word) traits -- i.e., you can't say "that guy is likely to shoot up this place because he's black." You can say, "that guy is likely to shoot up this place because he's acting very agitated."
How about 'that guy is likely to shoot up this place because he looks like a fucking moron with a long gun holding it in an aggressive position.'?
Copypasta from ongoing debate on a friend's facebook posting about a pro-open carry on campus 'protest':
Adam Macintyre-Ross Because no college student ever made a bad decision, or a decision that would be far worse if it involved a gun. 5 hrs · Like
Matthew Sleadd And of course there have never been any situations where college students, regardless of age, or teachers, have needed to defend themselves from violent assaults. 4 hrs · Like · 1
Adam Macintyre-Ross True, but I can't think of a time at RIT where there was a situation would have been made better by having students and/or staff packing heat. The chances of being involved in a gun related incident are a lot closer to 0 when less people have guns. I wish I cloud find the video of a social experiment where they trained some college kids in concealed carry, armed them with a non-lethal, pellet firing replica, and told them they'd have to use their skills at some point. When they were in a lecture hall, and 'aggressors' stormed in with replica weapons and started shooting, none of them were able to draw and fire effectively, and four of the six ended up 'dead'. I don't trust enough people to be well trained enough, and to make the right calls often enough to think that this is a good idea. 4 hrs · Like
Matthew Sleadd So what I'm hearing is a general argument against allowing civilians to be armed and not an argument concerning college campuses as an exemption. Which works well for New York and is a reason I have moved to another state. 1 hr · Like · 1
Vader-aka Chris Wren Adam, i saw that video. I followed the article and that was far from an accurate portrayal of reality. a short "intro" to conceal carry does not make a person a master at the art. I conceal carry every day (and I am a student who supports this) and ...See More 1 hr · Edited · Like
Vader-aka Chris Wren And if I may, based on your point, we should deny everyone the ability to drive because "no adult ever drove while intoxicated" 1 hr · Like
Adam Macintyre-Ross I've never been a fan of the car/gun analogy. One is used as transportation. One is designed to kill someone at range. People who misuse their vehicle also have their licence pulled. Using a car as a weapon is a bit tougher than using a gun as a we...See More 45 mins · Edited · Like
Vader-aka Chris Wren Both are tools used by individuals to perform a task. Both are deadly when used in improper methods or applications.
We can choose then to look at knives if you wish. A knife is a tool that is designed to kill someone at range. We are allowed knive...See More 58 mins · Like
Adam Macintyre-Ross I defy you to find one incident where someone has thrown a bow staff and murdered someone. Seriously.
Plus, a guy with a knife at range is far less dangerous than a guy with a gun. if he throws that knife, he's either got to have a lot more knives, ...See More 49 mins · Edited · Like
Vader-aka Chris Wren I didn't say throw. I said at range. You did not specify what range meant. 2 feet is a range. 50 feet is a range. My tonfa, sai, nun-chucks, bow staff, jo staff, are all deadly within their respective ranges, and all but maybe one or two would not raise any questions if I walked onto campus with them. 49 mins · Like
Vader-aka Chris Wren Also, for a "thrown bo staff", see javelin. Yes, people have died from a javelin, and I can use a javelin as a bow staff. 48 mins · Like
Adam Macintyre-Ross Oh come on now. You know what I mean. Guns are designed to kill people (or animals) and further than a few feet. You may claim you are well trained, and indeed you may be, but how does everyone else know that? What if someone who is less trained than you thinks you are the threat, and shoots you by accident? Edit: Javalins...really. 48 mins · Edited · Like
Adam Macintyre-Ross Also, Matt mentioned that there have been incidents where teachers and students need to defend themselves from violent assault. This is true, incidents have occurred. But I can't imagine the tremendous clusterfuck that would result in a dozen or more people involved in a shootout, when most, if not all, do not have the levels of training you or Matt may have. You guys have the training, you're safe (I assume), and that's great. But I'm not willing to put money on everyone else being so. Just because you guys hold yourselves to high standards of safety and training doesn't mean everyone can, or would. Think about the dumbest, derpiest person you know. Now give them a gun. It's not a situation I'd want to be near. 40 mins · Like
Vader-aka Chris Wren It is not my fault you did not qualify your statement. Clearly enumerating your point is paramount to sustaining your argument.
You cited a situation or example and I was able to counter it.
"You may claim you are well trained, and indeed you may be, but how does everyone else know that?" In a shooter situation, or a broader example, in an emergency situation, those that are trained very quickly become obvious to those around by their actions, how they present themselves and how they react to the situation.
" What if someone who is less trained than you thinks you are the threat, and shoots you by accident?" That is part of my role (if I choose to engage) is to demonstrate myself to NOT be the threat.
Here is the bottom line. Armed, I have the CHOICE to engage or not. To determine if the situation can be alleviated, if not ended, with my involvement, but unarmed, I have the same choice, but my odds of being effective are greatly reduced, tot he point that most would never engage, waiting for someone to engage while others are killed.
Case in point. November 2014. FSU Main campus library. In the library (a gun free zone) a person ILLEGALLY brought in a pistol and opened fire. 1 person who was injured was a combat veteran who was disarmed because he was on campus. A second person that was shot was a member of Students for Conceal Carry. Both individuals would have been armed if they were allowed, and at least one of them could have chosen to engage and end the shooting spree that occurred in the library. 40 mins · Like
Vader-aka Chris Wren In Florida (where I currently go to school) to get a CCP, you are REQUIRED by LAW to attend and complete gun training. EVERY Florida resident with a CCP has gone through training of some kind. 38 mins · Like
Adam Macintyre-Ross But it's not obvious, that's what I'm saying. To someone untrained, you may be an accomplice. They don't know. To ANOTHER trained person, they might be, but not so some random, untrained person. Or worse, some yahoo who likes to show off his shooty-toy who is looking for a chance to use it, and can't tell the difference. You can't tell me you haven't seen someone or know someone who has or does wildly inappropriate things with their gun.
How do you demonstrate that you are not a threat, during a crisis, while you have a gun, and are possibly engaged in an active firefight?
The library incident is not a great example. They could have engaged and stopped it, but they could have engaged, missed, been killed, and then the shooter has another gun. Granted, those are valid arguments, but if you open the campus up for a greater number of people, you're looking at a greater chance of someone screwing up. Badly.
As for the gun training, hey, great. But even well trained and well meaning people can screw up. I'm not saying this as a 'No one should ever have guns! Rar!" argument, but the risk vs. reward possibilities here seem really slim.
Look, the way I see it the issue at that shooting spree wasn't that not enough people had guns. It's that some asshole who shouldn't have had access to guns got them in the first place. 31 mins · Like
Vader-aka Chris Wren Then might I ask a simple question. You state "the risk vs. reward possibilities here seem really slim." and stand behind the general basis of "no guns on campus". We agree and accept this premise.
How many shootings have occurred on school grounds? How many shootings have occurred in areas that are deemed "Gun free zones?" How many shootings have occurred at a gun range?
"It's that some asshole who shouldn't have had access to guns got them in the first place." And this may be so, but how are you going to find and stop the individual who breaks into a home, steals the collection of firearms and then uses those stolen firearms to go to a gun free zone and commit a shooting spree? We agree he illegally acquired the weapons. We agree he illegally brought the firearms into a gun free zone. We agree he illegally fired and killed innocent people. So how will we stop him? Posted guards every 2 feet at the border of every gun free zone and entrance requires a complete body search? Are you willing to stand in line and wait for hours to be able to enter a gun free zone as the people ahead of you are strip searched to ensure they are not carrying a firearm? Are YOU willing to be strip searched to ensure you are not carrying a firearm into a gun free zone? 24 mins · Like
Adam Macintyre-Ross You mention another problem: Breaking into a home and stealing weapons. That could have been avoided if the person either didn't own the weapons in the first place, or wasn't irresponsible with them. You don't need guards everywhere, but I see no reason why campus police can't do the job. And not campus safety, not some part timer, actual police. The solution doesn't need to be as draconian, but my point is still that more people with more guns isn't something that would readily solve these situations. You'd get any number of people engaged in a gunfight, and any bullet fired that missed (and even some that don't, depending on the caliber) could easily cause more damage than good. And there's still the 'asshole with a gun' problem. Someone can easily get a gun legally, go through the training, and still misjudge a situation or still, for lack of a better description, be an asshole. Like I said, think of the lowest common denominator for a minute. Think of the least responsible person you know, someone who makes terrible judgement calls, and they now have the ability not only to own a gun (which is a given) but walk around a school with it. That person can still pass a gun safety course. There are a significant number of people I can think of who, if they had guns, would have been in situations that ended poorly. I think the better question here is this: If you have a qualified, responsible person with a weapon and a track record of safety and responsibility, how do you allow them access? How do you prove they are the reliable people? What happens if there IS an unintentional or accidental shooting? Additionally, if you have carry on campus, and even if you prove that the persons carrying are 'good guys', how can you guarantee that it could be a deterrent or a better possible result then not having any number of armed people on the campus? How do you prevent the people with guns from not being targeted themselves? 11 mins · Like Adam Macintyre-Ross
I mostly take issue with the dorm situation. People go in and out of dorms a lot more than your average apartment so I'd be afraid it would get stolen, even if locked up. I remember a guy down the hall from me who was an illegitimate businessman, an amateur pharmacist if you will, who had a bunch of money stolen from a safe in his dorm.
If its some dude going to class and then going home who has a ccw and carries everywhere else, go for it. Open Carry? Ehhh
I'm generally in favor of maximum freedom, but that's stupid. On a public campus I could understand opening it up to CCW, as long as they abide by the rules that it should never be visible and only used in extreme circumstances. Private colleges of course are allowed to set their own rules, but I'd hope they'd do something similar. Open carry is asking for a lot more trouble than it is worth on college campuses.
One thing I don't really get in what I've seen in the American debates about guns. People seem to be more accepting of hidden carry, instead of open carry.
For me it would be opposite. If you have to have guns let me know who is carrying one (or more) so I know to be afraid of the person and avoid them as much as I could. With hidden carry one must assume that everyone is packing the heat and act accordingly.
I don't get most things about American gun control debates. There are so many weird assumptions that just don't seem to connect with reality. Or, at least, the reality they connect to is the one where everyone, including police, seem to act as though anyone and/or everyone is carrying a device designed to kill them/others, and that they should act accordingly. And yet they seem okay with that? Hurts my brain.
You know, if all the money going towards dubious anti-gun groups like the Brady Campaign went to something to provide adequate gun training for free, it would probably do a lot more good. Think planned parenthood for guns (and no, I don't mean go to the desk and ask for free guns).
I don't get most things about American gun control debates. There are so many weird assumptions that just don't seem to connect with reality. Or, at least, the reality they connect to is the one where everyone, including police, seem to act as though anyone and/or everyone is carrying a device designed to kill them/others, and that they should act accordingly. And yet they seem okay with that? Hurts my brain.
The insanity of guns (2nd amendment) is what we get along with the amazing powers of free speech (1st amendment) in a government that has a strong constitutional federal system that is literally incapable of further amending said constitution.
As awful as the guns are, the free speech is more important. I'll take the guns if it gets me the free speech.
As awful as the guns are, the free speech is more important. I'll take the guns if it gets me the free speech.
How far does free speech bet you in police state? Do you have to pay for free speech by being monitored by a Government?
I would give up free speech if it were to balance out with strict gun laws, remove Government agencies spying on citizens and being ok with killing them on home soil and having a democracy.
Free speech is fundamental. That the US abuses its citizens pretty badly isn't a compelling argument against free speech.
I missed the point on how having shitty gun laws were ok if you had free speech unless it was meant strictly in terms of a trade off. Also fundamental of what? How many citizens know and are confident enough to exercise their rights when confronted with those who pose to be officers of the law?
Free speech is fundamental. I'll put up with an awful lot to keep it. In the context of this conversation where free speech is being weighed against other rights, I think it's just not a bargaining chip at all. It's not negotiable. Free speech vs gun rights is not a thing.
Free speech is fundamental. I'll put up with an awful lot to keep it. In the context of this conversation where free speech is being weighed against other rights, I think it's just not a bargaining chip at all. It's not negotiable. Free speech vs gun rights is not a thing.
White people not getting shot at by the police will always hold free speech as more important than a culture where guns are considered a default law enforcement solution.
White people not getting shot at by the police will always hold free speech as more important than a culture where guns are considered a default law enforcement solution.
Agreed.
However, the disarmament of police is (in the US) an entirely separate conversation. The funny thing is that, constitutionally, it's easier to take guns away from cops than from rando private citizens...
Comments
maybe NSFW video if like... handguns, lubes, and language are your workplace Kryptonite. youtube.com/watch?v=ivR5IhIslxk
If its some dude going to class and then going home who has a ccw and carries everywhere else, go for it. Open Carry? Ehhh
As I said above, no one is above making a mistake. Trained is good, but it doesn't make anyone above screwing up.
For me it would be opposite. If you have to have guns let me know who is carrying one (or more) so I know to be afraid of the person and avoid them as much as I could. With hidden carry one must assume that everyone is packing the heat and act accordingly.
As awful as the guns are, the free speech is more important. I'll take the guns if it gets me the free speech.
Do you have to pay for free speech by being monitored by a Government?
I would give up free speech if it were to balance out with strict gun laws, remove Government agencies spying on citizens and being ok with killing them on home soil and having a democracy.
Also fundamental of what? How many citizens know and are confident enough to exercise their rights when confronted with those who pose to be officers of the law?
However, the disarmament of police is (in the US) an entirely separate conversation. The funny thing is that, constitutionally, it's easier to take guns away from cops than from rando private citizens...