Today is a plug day. I am in no way a part of this group, not even a member (Though that may change soon, I haven't decided.) I am just an observer who agrees wholeheartedly with their movement.
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus
This is a group (90% College students, 10% parents, teachers, staff, per their website) that believes that the 2nd Amendment should apply to campus as well. The reasons they believe this are clear: mass shooting cases, like VT, as well as all of the other violence that is growing on college campuses leads to the need for proper self-defense.
Unlike one's job, where they work there for part of the day, a college student may not leave campus. At all. However, due to a combination of state law and college policies, they are wholly disarmed for the entire 'college experience' when those that would prey on them are not.
Proponents of this movement, such as myself, believe that when the responsible gun owner student is able to defend themselves legally with a firearm, crime will go down and the campuses will be safe.
Opponents suggest that colleges would become drunken shooting fests, with drunk college students killing people at random.
I would suggest that the college students that would wish to kill others already can, and do. "Weapon Free" Zones have failed us. They have not provided the safe places that the left promised that they would.
Groups like Handgun Control Inc, formerly called "The National Council to Control Handguns" and now called the "Brady Campaign" (the previous names apparently made it too clear what their only real concern was, so now they can hide behind something to make their opponents look like heartless thugs.) suggest that students who believe in self-defense, the 2nd Amendment and the right to protect themselves from criminals should 'drop out' of college.
That's right, the spokesman for the Brady Campiagn, Peter Hamm, suggested (as reported (link here to a story about it) "“You don’t like the fact that you can’t have a gun on your college campus? Drop out of school.”
Apparently, education should be reserved for those willing to be unarmed defenseless victims, according to the Brady Campaign.
Remember folks, this isn't a story about students wanting to play soldier, or drunk redneck hicks wanting to take their scattergun to school and shoot up the place. This is about adults (Remember that you have to be 21 to get a concealed carry permit, so we're talking about a few select seniors or returning adult students) who are responsible enough to want to defend themselves. They seek the training, background check process and have enough care of the law, to get a concealed carry permit to protect themselves.
Support the group. Support their program and their stance to defend themselves. This isn't to force anyone who does NOT want to carry, to carry. If you don't like guns and don't ever want one, you can still support this group. They aren't there to make you love guns. They are there to defend themselves. Don't keep taking that right away from them.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Well, there are several issues. The first is more situational. There are college campuses and college campuses. You have big open areas and, like the school I'm currently attending, a bunch of buildings. If you attend a bunch of buildings school, then the entrances can be easily guarded against people with guns. If not, the term security-personal comes to mind (even if yes). And, yes, they can and should be armed.
You mentioned the VT thing, so I feel an obligation to say this. That kid bought the weapons legally. If there had been more efficient background checks, they could have found out that this kid was unstable and then NOT sold him the guns. That would have gone a long way in preventing the incident.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
nope, you're wholly wrong here as well.
As even recent history has shown, guards at the door don't get all the weapons. That's not sufficient. It is not an answer. It doesn't work. it doesn't matter how many times you say "put guards at the door" . . . it doesn't work, it hasn't worked and it won't work.
If there is going to be a security guard issued, why can't I carry? I have just as much training (if not more) than a security guard. You're asking me to give up my right to defend myself, specially permitted by the state, guarenteed by the 2nd amendment, and allow some security guard to be my defense?
not only are they NOT with me every moment of the day, but it could take 5 minutes or more for them to get from one side of a building to another.... it only takes about 5 or 6 seconds to pull a gun and shoot up a classroom of students.
No thanks, I'll still support MY right to defend MYSELF.
And, as for the VT bit.. He didn't buy it legally. The background check didn't pick up what would have made it illegal for him to own a firearm under the current law.
However, that is neither here nor there, as criminals can buy stolen firearms from drug dealers, or other scum off the street, or they can steal it from a homeowner. The interesting note about VT is that state law there allowed any student with a concealed carry permit to carry, even on campus, unless the college had a policy against it. The year of the shooting was the FIRST year the college had a 'weapon free zone' policy. That policy hadn't even been around for a few months and it already wholly failed. Those students Could and Would have been saved by a student or staff/prof with a concealed carry permit who was allowed to carry.
I do support background checks. I, more strongly, support the constitutional right for me to keep and bear, ESPECIALLY in self-defense against criminals who would shoot 32 people.
I support very extensive background checks. If your background check can miss something like that, then you have a problem.
Ever hear of metal detectors? That's a pretty good way to stop guns from coming in a building.
I could support the idea of trained staff carrying guns for these emergencies. I'm not sure about that. It would have to be strictly regulated.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
Metal defectors are not all that accurate.
the TSA uses multiple metal detectors and x-ray devices and in recent tests, 70% of all weapons made it past airport screeners.
You think that a school has tighter defenses than an airport? I don't think so.
And the reason that the VT shooter didn't show up on the background check was not because of the gun shop or the background check process that arleady exists, but because of the lefty coddling of people with issues. Because of how he was admitted and discharged from the institution, he wasn't flagged.
The issue is that, when he went to shoot up the campus, there was no one there to stop him. He finally stopped when she had his fill and shot himself.
Not 1 person there could shoot back, they were all disarmed.... for their protection.
Gun Free Zones fail. Every Time.
Like I said. Increased background check. I don't want someone who was in a Mental Institution to be able to own a gun. People should have been able to see that he was, at some point, in a nut-house. Therefore, he should have been stopped from buying a gun legally.
If we stop making a bunch of nonsence, like marijuana, illegal, we could devote a whole buncg of extra cops to finding people who sell illegal guns.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
And, again, that isn't the fault of the current laws or the gun shop, but a failure on the part of the health board for not reporting it.
if you want 'increased laws" . . . go after them.
Gun owners are not second class people that you can slap extra laws on or extra taxes on (like OSHA has tried to do many times on ammunition) every time something stupid happens.
If you REALLY want to solve alot of gun crime, let people carry.
If you were a mugger or a rapist, would you mug or rape someone who was armed with a firearm? likely not.
if you KNEW that the person was unarmed, because of laws that do not allow them to be armed, it'd be much easier to commit such a crime.
I would never suggest taxing gun owners to a greater extent that another portion of the population.
If there is any mismanagement or poor enforcement or inefficient laws that allow dangerous people to attain guns, then I would go after those laws. If the health department screwed up, than shame on the health department.
However, I do believe that a more efficient background check would have at least revealed something that would make people suspicious. The fact that this guy was in an institution can't be that difficult to find out.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
The background checks are efficient and in-depth.
In that shooter's case, the health department didn't require that he be registered on the lists that the background checks would show.
Again, it wasn't the fault of the gun shop or the current laws regarding buying firearms.
However, the anti-gun forces want you to believe otherwise.
I still hold that an armed student or professor could have ended this shooting spree MUCH lower down the line than 32.
Well then, a slap on the wrist for the health department. Probably a little more than that actually. Like I said, anything that allows for weapons to get into the hands of dangerous people should be fixed.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
Heh, now you understand why 'gun nuts' like me are always so upset when it comes to people suggesting new more intrusive laws.
The laws already exist to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but the laws don't work. the solution to failed laws are not more laws based on the same opinion that led to the existing failed laws.
I will fight for 2nd Amendment rights, concealed carry rights and self-defense via firearm until the day I die or the day they mass-produce laser guns (then I'll swap over to fighting for self-defense via laser guns! heh.)
I'm also a bit raw right now as my carry piece is in the gunshop being fixed, so I'm having to cope. lol.
I'm not suggesting, exactly, more intrusive laws. I am suggesting a revision of the laws to make them more effective in protecting the populace, all around. If there is a flaw in any part of the system, then it has to be fixed.
Pffft, laser guns. What you want is an anti-matter gun. ....Whatever the hell that is.
I hope your piece makes it through ok. Just remember, you did everything you could. ......... end bad humor......
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
Heh. We could just embrace Star Trek and issue a "Main Deflector Dish" to everyone... In Star Trek the Next generation, that thing could do everything!
What needs to be done is more people looking at the laws that aren't directly gun-related. The health department's ability to not flag potentially dangerous people, for example. That isn't the fault of the background checks. They're doing what they're supposed to do. In this case, it's the fault of the health department for not having a policy that makes any and all time spent in a mental facility visible on background checks.
They need to take an objective look at the situation as a whole and see where the loopholes lie and fix them there, regardless of who's department said loopholes are in.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
It must be scary for you to live in a state of fear. I think most people that feel as though they need to carry weapons all the time are hiding behind the weapon, there is something else there. I worked for the Department of Corrections, in a prison, and would still not consider carrying a weapon.
Evidence points to Cho following the letter of the law when he purchased his weapons. The problem in Virginia is that there are holes in the mental health law. They have no implication of Duty to Warn, which has been adopted in all other states. That means that although he was unwillingly referred to outpatient treatment for disturbing and threatening behavior, no one had the duty to warn the police or his potential victims. Which at the time were some college girls. The law comes out of Tarasoff versus the California Board of Regents.
It scares me when people are walking around and possibly carrying guns. When I worked in the Prison, I met a guy who killed his brother by accident with a legal weapon. He was drunk and thought his brother bringing him a beer was an intruder. He gets to live with the fact that he killed his brother, time in prison and the removal of several civil rights. Not to mention the transitory problems a felon encounters when leaving prison, ie not finding work etc.
Then, again, any legislation should be on the health department, not the gun shops.
And, again, the solution is to allow responsible legal gun owners to carry, especially those with special permits to carry.
You worked in the prisons... how many of those in those prisons, that committed crimes with firearms, were legla gun owners with a concealed carry permit?
I would imagine slim to none (likely none)
As far as the story where someone drunk killed their brother... should we compare? Look at most of the threads I've posted for the last week or two. I could vastly outnumber you with stories of people saving their lives with firearms.
Those that prey on the innocent are armed. Those innocents (that'd be us) need to be as well.
You worked in a prison, you know how dangerous these criminals are, and you know how SO many of them return to prison.
They return to prison by committing crimes. Against innocents who become victims.
you would deny them that self-defense because someone got trunk and shot their brother?
i'll remind the next rape victim I see how it was ok that they were raped, because if they had been armed, they might have accidently shot someone.
I'm sure it will console them.
Actually a vast majority of criminals go to jail or prison for minor offenses and end up learning to survive via crime. A lot of times they are doing the only thing they know how. This does not mean that I condone criminal behavior, but first offenses are not usually due to violent crime. The after effect of prison is what causes more violent crime. When prisoners are released they often find a lot of trouble and barriers to creating a successful life for themselves. This stems from a societal outlook that no matter what a person has done to improve, they are still trash, and do not deserve the privilege of work. As well, every time the leadership of a state goes from blue to red, prison rehabilitation programs and education programs magically lack the funding to continue, or are quickly shut down. This is in fact due to the overwhelming republican attitude of retribution vs re-education, when in fact rates of recidivism go down after a prisoner has been involved in rehabilitation programs. A lot of the guys I worked with didn't use guns, they knew knives worked better, more accurate, more deadly and they could usually attack before someone could retrieve and fire a weapon.
So, the criminal is the victim and society is the real criminal, and the solution is to get rid of guns.
did I sum that up right?
Prison isn't about reducation. If we filled the prison system with every kind of education program, we might as well BEG for the poor to turn to crime. After all, it becomes a free education.
Prison is about punishmen (not retrobution, nice twist there by the way.). Punishment for crimes.
You want to 'reeducate' them? Fine. For a long time I've called for prison labor to be used nationally. Instead of paying the prisoner, of course, you pay the prison. Chain gangs can pick crops and do menial construction work.
Then, when they get out, they have X years experience in the construction field or in the ag field and can go to work in more of a managerial role.
but handing out diplomas and college degrees to convict doesn't reduce crime.
Heck, I'm a law abiding citizen, but if I didn't have to PAY for college if I just did a few B&E and maybe Grand Theft Auto.... maybe take a hostage.... dang, it'd be tempting!
I said that I do not condone criminal behavior. I do not believe criminals are victims, they are criminals. We must look at the larger picture though. From a sociological and criminological standpoint, a great number of inmates were living in poverty prior to commiting a crime. Povertys breed social barriers to proper education and an ongoing evolution of community values, not matching those of the general society. Thus many of those particular individuals did have a choice whether or not to commit a crime, but logically, in their minds, crime was most likely a more viable option.
There is also a misunderstanding of what education programs are, this does not mean free schooling, it means re-education to prevent a person from depending on crime as there only form of survival. You and I as somewhat functioning people can see that crime is not a means to survival, but modeled behavior is one of the importnat factors in predicting future behavior. So we can note that if a person is brought up with good study habits, they will most likely continue that trend, the same can be said for criminality. If someone is brought up in an environment where crime is valued instead of studying, they will probably continue that trend. What you said about work programs, ie construction, those are fantastic programs, and are a part of prison ed programs that get set aside depending on leadership. There are some prisons that pffer limited education, but it usually is capped at a GED. This was done due to research showing that a high school education is a deterrent to future crime based on a greater ability to work. I would rather pay taxes to have someone get some education that will decrease the possibility of recidivism than pay those same taxes and have them stew and learn how to commit better, more lucrative and more violent crimes. I also volunteered for a while as a literacy tutor because 43% of my clients couldn't read (two of them had high school diplomas AND couldn't read).
A punishment only based system breeds further crime and increases criminality, ie becoming more violent upon release.
By the way...retribution means: the dispensing or receiving of reward or punishment, and is common terminology in the field of criminology.
Ok, so criminals are criminals, but it is society and poverty that is to blame for criminals.
so, the person is the victim of society and poverty, which drives them to crime.
So, again, the criminal is the victim and society is the criminal.
If only people had more education then they wouldn't be criminals.
Once again, you are not punishing someone for a crime, but instead rewarding them with education.
You wish to remove punishment from the criminal system and, instead, give a reward (education) . . . and that would keep people from committing crimes.... how?
You are deflecting, nontheless, the conversation away from the point of this thread:
The ability of a student who could, anywhere else, carry a concealed firearm.... disarmed while being a college student, for the good of the students
and the failure that such thinking has brought out. (for reference, compare school shootings with gun shop, gun show, gun rally and gun range mass murder events.)
I am obviously not as emotionally invested as you are here...wow. I responded to your post and then responded to your responses, I didn't deflect anything. First off imprisonment is punishment by definition. We can't lock up everyone for ever, so we have to work for the best outcome. When you have worked in a prison, or have behavioral training and seen men stew and change and become more violent it is easy to see what the outcome will be. I have seen it, and I have also seen education, not free college, but learning how to integrate in to society work. some outcomes based articles:
http://www.moral-reconation-therapy.com/Resources/metaMRTprob.pdf
http://dcj.state.co.us/ors/pdf/docs/Comm_Corr_05_06.pdf
I know you will just twist what I say to find your own meaning from my words, but I expect that, I have noticed you do that post after post. As for the blog above. Guns should not be on campus. I don't think the answer is to fight fire with fire. There is a huge problem with access to illegal weapons right? As you said before criminals, drug dealers, so on and so forth sell them to whomever, but where did those weapons come from? They were legal at some point, correct? Maybe they were stolen, and then used for crimes. The fact is that this country is oversaturated with firearms and introducing more perpetuates a problem. Look to countries that have tightened gun control, per capita fire arm related accidents, injuries and deaths were reduced. (See Canada, and the lack of public gun violence, and the fact that people aren't carrying concealed weapons)
I can see that you post blogs only to argue, and feel vindicated at how right you are. It must be hard to be right all the time.
And, 1984 was based on communism not socialism. parts of the book mimicked much of what Stalin had done, an also reflected the Russian Communist party structure at the time of writing. Orwel was anti-communism, anti-totaletarianism and was himself a socialist, much different than a communist.
Feel free to respond, I will respond no further, I much rather learn something than listen to someone spout off reactionary rhetoric.
If you won't respond to Lance, would you at least respond to me, since I haven't had anything to do with his "reactionary rhetoric"? I mentioned a pattern I saw when reading the conversation between you and Lance, if you haven't done so already, I ask that you read it and tell me your thoughts.
Also, if prison is supposed to be punishment, why is it a running joke that you are guaranteed three meals a day and a roof over your head? Even you mentioned that the "re-education" sometimes backfires and people just become worse. Does that not strike you as something wrong with the prison system?
You mentioned you don't carry guns while working in the prison. Why is that? Perhaps because the inmates don't have access to real firearms and you therefore don't need them? You do, however, carry knives. Again, you're matching their ability to assault with your ability to defend. You only need knives because an inmate is only going to have access to items they can use to stab, or relatively primitive slinging weapons they made from things they could get their hands on. Nothing that compares to a .38 special, though.
Finally, and somewhat off-topic....if you want to get technical, 1984 is a communistic society that makes its members believe it's socialist. Hence the term "Ingsoc," even though it's clear the government has control over everything. Regardless of whether it's communism or socialism, though, the book revolves around a government that has grown far too powerful and now controls not only the economy, but also what people know of the past, what they remember, and what is currently going on.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I wouldn't want to carry a gun, and couldn't while I worked in the prison because I am a counselor, not a guard. Secondly, I Intended to say that the inmates I worked with prefered knives over guns. Guards pretty much carried "katunks" ( a flashlight, that is the sound it makes when you hit somebody with it) their terminology.
Also I don't recall saying that the re-ed programs backfire, I said when there are no ed programs, convicts usually leave prison in a worse state than when they entered. For instance, I used to teach a class (and this is what I mean by education programs) called "Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse Treatment" It was a progressive class that taught about impulse control, alternative methods of action, so on and so forth. It included six months of work while they were on the inside, and six months while they were on probation. These programs have been studied and found to be statistically significant in the reduction of recidivism.
So, I should have been more clear with my intention. Although I have worked in prisons, with violent offenders (much closer than the average person), I still would not feel the need to carry a weapon at all in my daily life.
Favorite thing of the day regarding 2nd ammendment rights, and come on guys you have to admit this is a little crazy, Rudy Guliani thinks blind people should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon.
Ahh, so you enjoy the protection of the armed prison guards, all the while telling me that I shouldn't be armed. Gotcha.
and yes, Rudy has said some stupid things trying to cast off his anti-gun reputation, based on his actions as NYC mayor, and things he's said since.
Frankly, blind people have a right to own firearms. That doesn't mean that they need to and if I were blind I wouldn't CHOOSE to. But the rights are still there.
I don't remember reading in the Constitution "You have a right to speech, unless you have gingivitis."
Each right comes with a responsibility. Out of fear of people being irresponsible, the left has sought to take away our rights, specifically the 2nd amendment (though the "Fairness Doctrine" the left wants would also attack the 1st Amendment).
Every person you see in that prison.... it is illegal for them to own a firearm. Why, then, are you wanting to take MINE away?
So, I will respond...As I said the guards had flashlights, so if that is your idea of armed, ok. They were never with me when I was teaching classes, they were never with me when I was running groups or having individual classes. I also am not trying to "take your guns away" this is what I mean when I say you make someone elses meaning your own. And of course blind people have the right to own guns, but it is ridiculous to imagine a blind person carrying a concealed weapon, without the ability to garauntee what they are shooting at. Even blind hunters have to be accompanied by a sighted hunter.
I'm not going to go down the silly "Blind people with guns" route.
However, what, exactly, do the prison guards do when the prisoners riot?
There are all of these notions of what prisons are and are not, there have been a handful of prison riots in the last 60 years. Many Prisons are set up in such a way that inmates have limited access to eachother. There is also the factor of at which security level they are incarcerated. You have to take a detailed look at the prison system, a look at the history of prison success and failure before you make assumptions about the system. It starts, usually at a classification center, this is a facility housing inmates until they are "classified" by several factors, including crime committed, past behavior while incarcerated, health issues (HIV etc) sometimes age, gang affiliation and so on. I would note that this is a state system, federal runs differently. The fact is I was never actually even present for a fight, even though I was there about 60 hours a week. When there was a fight, guards would break up the fight, if there was a weapon involved, perhaps a specialized team might come in, but after the fight, inmates might lose privileges, or have time added on to their stay via loss of "good time".
see, you didn't answer my question. At all.
Instead you off-handedly insult me.
You're wholly avoiding the POINT, which I believe is your only real goal.
stop trying to derail this thread with your "it is all society's fault" rhetoric.
The question was, what do the guards do when there is a riot. My answer was that the prison system is continually set up to prevent rioting. In the event of a larger fight or weapons drawn a specialized team comes in, (usually shield and baton, no firearms) I meant to add this in the previous post.. I also indicated that it is a rare enough occasion that I never have witnessed even a fight in the confines of a prison. Further, Each state will have it's own crisis response plan, and usually involves a lock down, and the removal of prisoners to holding areas, as someone posted, there weapons are farily primitive, so the work is often quick in removing them (the prisoners) out of the situation.
It was also not my intention to insult you, if you think everyone is insulting you all the time, it is perhaps the reason you are hiding behind a weapon. All that I said was that a person needs to understand the prison system in depth before making assumptions about the way it is run, as they should any system. I didn't indicate anything about society in the previous post either, when I have mentioned it, I did so on the basis of fact. There is a distinct pipeline feeding in to the prison system, this does not mean that people should not take responsibility for their choices, they absolutely should.
I have to agree with Bob on this one, Lance. You're starting to read into things a little too far. You asked what guards do in cases of riots, and he answered to the best of his knowledge. What more do you want?
There is a difference between defending your cause and not listening to what others actually have to say.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
You didn't indicate anything about society in that one post, that is true.
Though in this one you call it a 'pipeline' and in previous ones made society out to be the criminal and the criminal out to be the victim.
Yet you say that you didn't 'in the previous post' as though you haven't at all.
still deflecting, however, from the TOPIC of the thread:
Students with a concealed carry permit being allowed to carry on campus.
Stop defelcting. Address the point or go away. I don't much care which you choose.
This is what I posted yesterday:
"Guns should not be on campus. I don't think the answer is to fight fire with fire. There is a huge problem with access to illegal weapons right? As you said before criminals, drug dealers, so on and so forth sell them to whomever, but where did those weapons come from? They were legal at some point, correct? Maybe they were stolen, and then used for crimes. The fact is that this country is oversaturated with firearms and introducing more perpetuates a problem. Look to countries that have tightened gun control, per capita fire arm related accidents, injuries and deaths were reduced. (See Canada, and the lack of public gun violence, and the fact that people aren't carrying concealed weapons)"
You seem to have a problem with seeing only what you want to. The pipeline was in reference to the societal pressures put on to different classes of people, keeping in line with what I had said previously. This is what I meant by reactionary.
This is what I posted yesterday:
"Guns should not be on campus. I don't think the answer is to fight fire with fire. There is a huge problem with access to illegal weapons right? As you said before criminals, drug dealers, so on and so forth sell them to whomever, but where did those weapons come from? They were legal at some point, correct? Maybe they were stolen, and then used for crimes. The fact is that this country is oversaturated with firearms and introducing more perpetuates a problem. Look to countries that have tightened gun control, per capita fire arm related accidents, injuries and deaths were reduced. (See Canada, and the lack of public gun violence, and the fact that people aren't carrying concealed weapons)"
You seem to have a problem with seeing only what you want to. The pipeline was in reference to the societal pressures put on to different classes of people, keeping in line with what I had said previously. This is what I meant by reactionary.
You say you have no interest in fighting fire with fire. True, you apparently would prefer that we use gasoline.
I don't want to fight fire with fire either. If a criminal with a firearm is fire, then a responsible gun owner with a concealed carry permit, able to carry their firearm on them, is a huge wave of water.
The question in there, that you didn't pay attention to was: Where do all of the illegal weapons come from? Were they not legal at some point? To my knowledge there isn't an underground gun manufacturer, and most illegal guns were stolen. Now the gun owner goes and replaces the stolen weapon, perpetuating the problem with an oversaturated market. There is a reason the US has a problem with gun violence, and it is not because there are not enough concealed weapon carriers, it is because there is too much access to guns.
And so we're back to your suggestion that if we got rid of guns, then there'd be no more crime.
That's where your logic leads. No matter how much you deny it.
Sorry, I don't give in to that socialist line of thinking.
here's why:
It doesn't work. Ever. In any country. Ever. Not in ONE Country can you say "They got rid of guns and crime stopped." not once.
However, I can point to MANY countries that gave up their firearms and became a part of an oppressive tyranny. China comes to mind, as does the USSR. And the Sudan (Ever heard of Darfur?!)
Yet again you misread what I wrote...I said nothing about the generalities of crime. I said that gun violence goes down. America has a high number of guns and a high percentage of non military gun violence. Countries that have less access, especially hand guns, have less gun violence. I am from Canada, we have less access to hand guns and less gun violence. (I now live in the US) Be fore you say it is because there is less people or come up with something else, that is per capita.
And, again, you are equating criminals with guns and responsible gun owners with guns.
Gun violence really went up when most states put a ban on the ability of the citizen to carry a pistol. As more states have introduced concealed carry permits, those numbers have gone down.
it is this concept of "Gun Control" that drives up gun violence, as those who would COMMIT violent crimes are emboldened to do so, knowing that their victim is likely unarmed.
And again you still skirt the question....where do the illegal guns come from?
I don't skirt that question at all, I openly and OFTEN say that the guns the criminals use are bought off the streets from other criminals and/or stolen from people's homes.
I have NEVER skirted that question. I do oppose any legislation that holds the homeowner liable for those stolen guns, as that would be (as the anti-gun people keep trying to do) turning the victim (the homeowner) into a criminal.
I believe that the CRIMINAL is the criminal and the VICTIM is the victim. If someone commits a crime, THEY are the criminal.
I would suggest that if someone wants to hold a homeown responsible for what is STOLEN from them, then they should be consistant enough to also publically say that raped women should be the ones charged with inciting rape.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I didn't infer that the homeowners are criminals. What I said several times, but you obviously only take what you want from what others say, is that if guns are being stolen, the answer is not to replace them with more guns. That is a problem. The more guns that are legally owned=more guns that could potentially be stolen. It is simple math. You only know the rhetoric of right to bear arms, not the intracacies and nuances. I have based my oppinion on personal experience and statistics, not what I have been told. How many times have you been approached by someone wielding a weapon? How often have your friends?
How about these headlines!:
Man Accidentally Shoots Self At Work
Dog Shoots Hunter
Dog shoots hunter in Douglas County
Clark County boy recovering after accidental shooting
There are more than this in the past week. I hope you never have to use your weapon, really I do. You are statistically more likely to get in a car accident than havet o shoot someone, so wear your seatbelt.
Ok, so when a homeowner is the victim of home robbery, and their guns are stolen..... they shouldn't be allowed to buy more guns? Is that REALLY your take?
That makes the victim (the homeowner) into a criminal, as they are being punished for having their guns stolen.
If someone steals your car, should we not allow you to drive anymore?
I HAVE been approached by someone with a weapon. I was jumped by someone who tried to beat the puss out of me with a bat. Does that make you happy? Am I allowed to talk about weapons now?
You want to talk about rhetoric? that's all you spew! The regular "Society is at fault!" "Something should be done about those homeowners getting more guns when theirs are stolen!" You might as well be from the Brady Campaign, reading their material!
Also, if you happen to READ those stories, you'd learn that none of those stories you refer to involve a legal gun owner with a concealed carry permit.
The man at work, which happened in Texas, was a person who, without a concealed carry permit, brought his gun to work. He kept it in his coat and when he sat down, something pulled the trigger and a round was fired, going through both of his legs.
Oops... I guess the stupid, ignorant gun-nut isn't as stupid and ignorant as you thought, eh?
Guards pretty much carried "katunks" ( a flashlight, that is the sound it makes when you hit somebody with it) their terminology.
Gotta love the Maglites. Those things are better than the night sticks the police carry around, IMO. Technically speaking, the guards are still armed, just not with a firearm. Again, not really much of a reason for one if the inmates don't use firearms of their own.
That's the biggest difference between the two situations, though. Inmates don't, for whatever reason, use firearms, and the guards are generally strong enough to subdue someone with little more than a "katunk." The outside world, unfortunately, doesn't work that way. Not everyone is going to be stronger than the "bad guys" and not all criminals will choose weapons other than guns if they can get their hands on them. That is why firearms are often referred to as equalizers. Whether you consider it right or wrong, it at least makes sense.
Also I don't recall saying that the re-ed programs backfire, I said when there are no ed programs, convicts usually leave prison in a worse state than when they entered. For instance, I used to teach a class (and this is what I mean by education programs) called "Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse Treatment" It was a progressive class that taught about impulse control, alternative methods of action, so on and so forth.
Perhaps backfire was the wrong word. You mentioned that you've seen some inmates get worse, despite the re-ed programs. Perhaps for those, either mental treatment or a different method is required? Are those available to these kinds of inmates?
How well do you think the class that you taught worked (as in, did you see differences)? If you felt it worked well, why do you think the government reduces funding or cuts it out completely at times?
I don't know how accurate this movie was a portraying a real prison, but there was a line in The Shawshank Redemption that seem to ring true, based on what you said earlier -- "On the outside, I was straight as an arrow. I had to come to prison to be a crook."
Favorite thing of the day regarding 2nd ammendment rights, and come on guys you have to admit this is a little crazy, Rudy Guliani thinks blind people should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon.
Being allowed to and choosing to are two different things. As long as you don't voluntarily give up those rights by doing something that lands you in jail or whatever, you have those rights no matter what. You also have the right to choose not to utilize those rights.
I fully believe in the Right to Keep and Bear arms. I don't, however, choose to keep a weapon at this point in time because to me, it's more a tool to get food than it is for personal defense. Since I live in the city and don't have time to hunt, I have no reason to keep firearms in my possession. I'm also not quite old enough to have a CCW permit, and the city I live in is "Weapon Free" happy...
As for self-defense, I feel I'm big enough and strong enough to do some damage to people who threaten me, especially with my steel-toed boots. =) In regards to other people and their feelings of self-defense, though, I'm not going to stop them from legally carrying if they so choose to, because that's what makes them feel safe and confident. Even if they never use it, because they feel safer with it they carry themselves differently than if they were nervous or afraid. Just that difference in how they carry themselves make them less likely of a target.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
God made man, Sam Colt made men equal.
old saying, but true.
as for your last bit, that's all that we ask. A person doesn't have to love guns, or even like guns, or want to have guns.... you are free to choose to NOT carry. Just let me be free to choose to carry, that's all we ask.
Dragon, well said, I would rather hear your point of view and have you ask some questions rather than argue over who is right. I had included a couple of studies in a post earlier, that shows the efficacy of programs similar to the one I worked with. Our self study did show lowered rates in recidivism. I'm with you, I have no isue with self defense, I can care for myself. As for the whole prison issue, as you've read, my point was to say that although I have been in these situations, it has not made me fearful enough to carry a gun, rather it has made me look at the systemic problem at hand. I don't think all guns should go away, but as a counselor I know that when someone has all of their confidence and self reliance wrapped up in one object, they will depend on that object, and it could happen that they misread a threat.
I'm with you, I have no isue with self defense, I can care for myself. As for the whole prison issue, as you've read, my point was to say that although I have been in these situations, it has not made me fearful enough to carry a gun, rather it has made me look at the systemic problem at hand.
Why is it that you're not fearful of them? Does it have to do with the fact that you know them, you know what they're like? Now, obviously, you can't know everything about anyone that's ever been a criminal or done a criminal act, but you have a general understanding about how they work, why they usually do what they do, or what have you, correct?
That understanding and knowledge is key. People fear what they don't understand, which accounts for the vast difference between those of us who grew up in areas where guns were no different than any other potentially dangerous tool around the house and those who grew up being taught that guns are inherently evil creations. It's that knowledge that allows you to not feel the need to carry a gun of your own, versus pretty much everyone else, who doesn't have the kind of knowledge and understanding of the minds of real criminals at the level you work(ed).
During the last few months of my senior year of high school, I had so many people approach me that were basically scared for me, because I was moving from a small rural town to a large city (that also happened to have a fairly high crime rate). They were scared to death that I'd get shot or mugged or something. My answer to them was always that I feared the people in that rural area more than anyone in the city because those in the rural area could shoot you down from the other side of their 3-acres of land as soon as you set foot on their property and you'd never know what hit you. The ones in the city seem to have to be at point blank range to be able to hit the broad side of a barn with a rain of shots.
I see guns as self defense as a last resort. It's a big world out there, and no matter how big or how confident you are, there is still going to be someone bigger than you. Being able to protect yourself without the use of a weapon is fine and dandy as long as you know what your limits are. If you feel your limits can be reached fairly easily, then it's understandable that you'd want another way to defend yourself above and beyond your own physical ability. It's a matter of weighing that perceived necessity against your own abilities and the likelihood that such an event would actually happen.
The biggest thing us "gun-nuts" despise isn't the people that don't feel guns are an acceptable means of self-defense, but the ones that choose to severely limit or eradicate the use of guns in general. The people that imply things like "if you touch a gun, you'll turn into a mass murderer," that stem from ignorance about the nature of the item. All the pro-gun people want is the freedom to choose whether or not to carry and the proper education to go along with with. I think the biggest thing that needs to be done is educate people about guns and work to debunk the myths about them. Whether a person chooses to carry should not affect another person (unless that second person is physically threatening the carrier's life), and should not be affected by anyone. Like I said before, or elsewhere (many different conversations about this at once), you have the right to keep and bear arms, but that doesn't mean you have to.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
"Why is it that you're not fearful of them? Does it have to do with the fact that you know them, you know what they're like? Now, obviously, you can't know everything about anyone that's ever been a criminal or done a criminal act, but you have a general understanding about how they work, why they usually do what they do, or what have you, correct?"
When I began working with substance abusers I was 19 and in the prison at 22. I was fairly fresh out of college and didn't know myself let alone others, but I always treated the inmates with respect. After leaving the DOC, maybe 5 years later I saw a former inmate, he was working at the same place he started at in our program. He thanked me for treating im like a human and said that it helped him stay clean and free.
I'm still guessing that you have a degree in psychology of some sort, right? Even if it didn't specialize in "criminal psychology" or whatever other specialization that would be relevant to a prison councilor, it's still probably significantly more knowledge than what most people have, which was the point I was trying to make.
Treating them like humans probably did help a lot, especially since a lot of people don't seem to understand that. A lot of prisoners are just people who screwed up, made a stupid mistake and are paying for it. It doesn't surprise me that treating them as such can make a huge difference in their success.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Absolutely everything you have said has reinforced the fact that the guns shops and legal, responsible gun owners are not the ones to blame and should not be the ones punished.
You say that poverty can lead to crime. Okay then, reduce poverty. Help people get training to get better jobs before they turn to crime. Then all your problems relating to poverty-induced crime would be solved because there wouldn't be poverty. Lower the crime and poverty rates. Kill two birds with one stone. Sounds pretty good, if you ask me.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
but it is just easier to blame the 'gun-nuts' . . . after all, if we start holding the poor responsible for themselves, then they'll start wanting to think for themselves, then they'll want to be independent
We can't have poor people being all independent and taking responsibility for themselves, they may become middle class or rich, and that'd shoot the socialism platform all to heck.
*grin*
1984, here we come!
I was kind of suprised that someone who was such a socialist wrote a book that defined all of the evils of socialism so well.
Technically speaking, as far as I can remember, the world of 1984 isn't necessarily Socialist. I can't remember anyone talking about a controlled economy. It seemed more fascist to me.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
No, it was socialist. It was referred to as "EngSoc" (which was "newspeak' for English Socialism)
And the economy was controlled, they had everything rationed as to what they could buy, and the government decided what could be done by business (one long passage focused on how they 'raised' chocolate rations 'up' from half a cup to one quarter of a cup, or something like that, and the main character noted that even though this was actually a decrease, no one would remember the old ration and any surviving print of the old ration would be destroyed as propaganda of the evil capitalists.)
Lancekates, your last post cam out as a line, I suppose we are exhausting our space. Let's repost at the bottom here to begin a new thread. I agree---say no to skinny boxes
Here's what I was able to cut and paste. heh. I'm sure something is left out, but I can't remember what.
-------------------------------------------------------
Ok, so when a homeowner is the victim of home robbery, and their guns are stolen..... they shouldn't be allowed to buy more guns? Is that REALLY your take?
That makes the victim (the homeowner) into a criminal, as they are being punished for having their guns stolen.
If someone steals your car, should we not allow you to drive anymore?
I HAVE been approached by someone with a weapon. I was jumped by someone who tried to beat the puss out of me with a bat. Does that make you happy? Am I allowed to talk about weapons now?
You want to talk about rhetoric? that's all you spew! The regular "Society is at fault!" "Something should be done about those homeowners getting more guns when theirs are stolen!" You might as well be from the Brady Campaign, reading their material!
Also, if you happen to READ those stories, you'd learn that none of those stories you refer to involve a legal gun owner with a concealed carry permit.
The man at work, which happened in Texas, was a person who, without a concealed carry permit, brought his gun to work. He kept it in his coat and when he sat down, something pulled the trigger and a round was fired, going through both of his legs.
"Also, if you happen to READ those stories, you'd learn that none of those stories you refer to involve a legal gun owner with a concealed carry permit."
That was exactly my point. There are plenty of responsible gun owners, but it is all of these incidents that make me concerned at the introduction of more weapons.
which is a prime reason why, instead of spreading fearmongering stories about how evil guns jump up and kill people, we ought to start, at a young age, gun SAFETY education.
rather than teaching them to run in fear from evil guns that want to kill them, we can teach children to understand the dangers of a firearm and how to safely handle one.
However, gun safety is one of the types of education that the left isn't interested in.
I'm interested in gun safety and education, much the same as I am about automobile safety and education, people should be educated, not everybody should drive. Fearmongering stories, as you call them are used by the right constantly, as an impetus for everyone to carry a gun. So the right can use the tactic but the left can't?
"However, gun safety is one of the types of education that the left isn't interested in."
I suppose you've met every liberal? General statements can't be defended, If there are guns there ought to be gun safety, I know plenty of liberals, moderates and conservatives that feel that way. Most believe there is a middle ground, but there are those that believe they need a sidearm in church and armor piercing bullets and an SKS to kill a duck.
stories about people defending themselves from criminals are not 'fearmongering'
Stories about kids 'accidently' shooting one another, and using stories like that to show how 'evil' gun are and how we just shouldn't have them...... THAT'S fearmongering.
And you'll not find, not ONCE, an instance where I suggest that everyone carry. You're setting up a straw man arguement.
you're also engaging in a red herring. When a conservative calls for 'gun safety', they're referring to educating the young in the safe handling of firearms, and the ability (per the right to keep and bear) to have a firearm for self-defense, and to be able to carry it. When a liberal calls for 'gun safety', they mean making further laws to make guns harder for law abiding citizens to get.
You're also setting up a strawman arguement with the idea that us conservatives are so wacko as to want an sks and armor piercing rounds to go after ducks. And, yes, I do carry at church as well. I don't think anything will happen at church but on the way to or from, it may.
Tell you what. Give me a list of places where I'm allowed to carry. You obviously have a better handle on who should have weapons and where the law abiding responsible citizens should be allowed to carry.
Using stories about women being raped, or people being mugged, or drug dealers carrying weapons...then you say, if they had a gun this never would have happened. Those are the fearmongering stories. Carry a gun or you'll be raped. arry a gun or someone is going to come in to your house and kill you. (Of course home invasions or burglary rarely involve firearms, because criminals understand how much time that would add to their sentence were they to be caught)
I've said time and time again, there is a systemic problem, allowing an individual to carry a weapon is not the answer. And yes, the NRA has fought for the right to carry semi-autos hunting, and the need for armor piercing bullets, I was not setting you up for anything. I remember getting the legaslative alerts when I was a member, they definitely made it clear that they are wacko with these types of fights, and I promptly left. (I own antique Springfield Trapdoor Rifles) Again you take everything as a personal attack (no wonder you need that gun!) when the issues of weaponry is a systemic societal issue.
I think guns for hunting are great, I think the police should carry guns, I don't think citizens NEED to carry guns anywhere. By the way, yet another generality you threw out there, I was talking about gun safety the same way you were, although it is true, not having guns is the easiest way to not be shot by one.
Why do you live in a world where you are so scared that you need a weapon? The arguement of weapons goes soooo far beyond that arguement of personal right. If you can't see that you are blind.
Quite the opposite bobbo.
Carry a pistol and should you ever have someone try and rape you, you'll be able to stop it.
That's VASTLY different than, as you put, "Carry a gun or you'll be raped."
You are, again, setting up staw man arguements, twisint my words and position into what it is not, then attacking what you've set up as my position, rather than dealing with my ACTUAL position.
And, burgleries often involve weapons. Just how it is. Fear of prison time isn't even a factor. If it was, they wouldn't be doing the B&E's, now would they?
And yes, people do have a desire to use hunting rifles while hunting. I know, it's crazy... to use a hunting rifle to hunt. You, and much of the population, have no clue as to what an assault rifle ACTUALLY is...
Yet, again, you're blaming SOCIETY. Society is the criminal... why, if society just wasn't so.... so.... Mean.... then there'd be no crime, as criminals wouldn't be disfranchised... right?
What a twisted reality you have.
these two, however, betray your liberal nature, which is why you will never understand the reason for the citizen to carry:
1.) I don't think citizens NEED to carry guns anywhere.
2.) although it is true, not having guns is the easiest way to not be shot by one.
Why do you live in a world where you are so scared that you need a weapon?
And, actually, I'm not scared at all. I'm armed. I know that if something ever happens, I'm able to defend myself and my loved ones.
Yet, you still hold society as the criminal and the criminal as the victim.
Classic leftist.
And yes, the NRA has fought for the right to carry semi-autos hunting,
Okay...? I fail to see how this is such a bad thing. The only thing a semi-automatic rifle does is kick out the spent shell and put in a new one, without you having to do anything. This is good if on the way off-chance you miss and have a second chance at getting that deer before it gets away, or if you're target practicing/sighting in, you don't have to re-aim every single time, making the sighting more accurate.
The issue I see with a lot of people is that they equate semi-auto with fully-auto because of the word automatic. That simply isn't the case. With a semi-auto, you pull the trigger once, you get one shot, it's that simple. The main purpose of it is that you can hold your target and still advance the magazine.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Gah, forgot to address that in my reply, when I was talking about how the population doesn't understand guns.
Yes, one pull, one shot. Maybe I ought to do a series on the main different kinds of firearms. (lever action, semi-auto, revolver, breech, pump, etc)
You are correct, one pull, 1 round. The firearm ejects the spent casing and, on the way back, picks up a new round, ready for you to pull the trigger again.