Deer Hunter
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,097
I got my paper back today. 85. Wonderful. 
So I get to looking at it, turning the pages, looking for things that was wrong with it. I don't see anything. No red-marks on the paper at all.
On the last page, I get this.
That's it? No other explaination? Even though my citations showed factual occurances and links to law databases?
So I look closer. And I found two pieces of paper, typed up, that wasn't there when I handed the paper in.
He typed up a two page rebuttal to my position. :banghead:
You know, biased English teachers are a pain in the you know what. So I sat down and wrote a rebuttal to his. I'm trying to be as educational as possible, but sometimes....
His rebuttal is in quotes. I broke it up into each argument.
Reynaldo,
I understand your sentiments. Trust me; I hear them all the time. But in your response to my paper I can see that you strongly disagree with the idea of students carrying concealed weapons on campus. I'll try to break your arguments down and present them to you in a way that might make more sense.
Even if you do not carry a concealed weapon you will always be protect by those who carry them. Albeit unconsciously. Don't simply look at Texas's concealed carry laws (Which I'm sure you have researched, right?), take for instance Colorado, Florida, Vermont (where open carry is allowed) or North Carolina. Any state, in fact, that allows for CHL. If it is actively known in that state that someone can carry, then it acts as a deterrent for some criminals. They could be looking to rob the staunchest anti-firearm lobbyist in the state, but they wouldn't know whether or not they had a firearm. There was a poll taken a few years back in max security prisons across the country. It asked the inmates what they most feared while attempting to rob someone. It wasn't the police or jail time they were afraid of. I can't remember the statistic, so I'm not going to BS it, but a huge percentage said the only thing deterring them oftentimes were if the homeowner or civilian was armed or not.
But to answer that first question, who knows? Maybe I'm across campus. Perhaps you'll be long gone before I reach the age where I legally can carry a pistol concealed. If I heard gunshots I certainly wouldn't dive under a desk and wait to be shot, if that‘s what you mean. It depends on the circumstance, as does everything else. But for the most part a CHL is protection for the individual that owns it. Why should you even bring it up that I should protect you? You're of the age to get your CHL, so why would you shove your responsibility of self preservation onto someone else?
First off, heroes don't usually have large asses. Look at batman, superman, etc. You being the nerd you are I would have hoped you could have seen that.
As for you carrying a handgun, well you have already said you don't feel comfortable with it. I'm all for letting faculty carrying concealed on campus, it simply makes sense. The teacher who died at the VT shooting died while holding a door closed from Cho as student escaped through the window. If there had been a faculty member present with a concealed weapon the results would have been different.
Well I'm glad we agree, then, because the dueling scenario is rather comic bookish. But you are right, if someone's going to catch you by surprise then there's not much you can do (not taking into account the "gun in face" scenario, which I hope you realize is the easiest way to not get shot. The closer the barrel is to your head, the easier it is to get out of the line of fire).
In your scenario I think you fail to observe how quickly a gun can be un-holstered. Have you ever seen the holsters people use for concealed carry? Or the way their pistols are carried? You'd be surprised at just how quickly it can be done.
However, simply because these scenarios exist doesn't mean that people can't have some fighting chance. The way you say it is almost like a doctor telling a patient, "Listen, you've got some hardass cancer growing on your gut and you don't have much of a chance at all. Let's just skip the meds and pump you with morphine until your kids can collect the life insurance, m'kay?"
Numerous students tried to rush Cho at the VT shooting. They were all shot. Those who didn't rush were killed literally execution style. This all occurred over a 30 minute time-span. The beauty of concealed carry is that first part: concealed. No one knows what you have. With that shooting, there was plenty of time for someone to draw and stop Cho before anyone could get seriously injured. But that didn't happen, because according to you the current system is doing a great job of stopping kids from shooting up their schools.
Equating students, especially legally licensed concealed carrying students, to gang members is quite a stretch. But if I follow you here (without questioning how many gang-related shootings you have witnessed), I think I see what you are saying. You are still perpetuating the "it wont do any good, why bother?" argument. When saying "they all get shot", does that include the bad guy too?
If it does, I'd say that's a step in the right direction. The next step is for you not to associate guns with gangs. If you want, I'll take you shooting one day. I could even take you to one of my pistol competitions. Not many gang members there, though, so don't get your hopes up.
Again, not doubting your knowledge on the subject at all, but how many "close range" (which would actually be "normal range") gun fights have you personally studied? Proficiency with a handgun at normal ranges where it would be used in self defense (according to the FBI statistic, it's 7 yards) is not hard to do. Even with adrenaline pumping. Reynaldo, I could teach you how to be proficient at 7 yards if you wanted. You speak of crossfire, which is something I'd think of as dealing with squad based machineguns. However all of this really relates back to the fact that somehow you don't think that a student bent on bodily harm should be stopped with equal or greater force. For your sake, let's think about the other scenario, besides the one where the in-proficient student doesn't fire at the crazed gunman. That student, along with a lot of others, ends up dead.
But thank god there wasn't a firefight, right?
Something you don't know about me is that I also fence. I've learned the moves, the stylized combat, all that jazz. When I got into a spar, as you have said, sometimes the opponent was extremely random and it took a bit of guessing. However if you practiced, like I had, you could see where the lunges were coming from. It was not impossible.
But didn't you just say it wouldn't likely be a "duel"? Forget the fencing analogy. We learned the fencing for competition use, not the one used to kill people.
So "me" shooting "him/her" is a bad thing because he will still be shooting in random directions that might hit "you" or others (ignoring the fact that this hermaphroditic shooter would have multiple center of mass bullet holes). So again we have hit a reoccurring theme of your rebuttal. You are against having qualified CHL holders carrying while in the classroom or on campus in general but you concede that shootings occur and people die but it is somehow better that they die unable to protect themselves. A CHL gives you the right to carry protection with you for yourself. These people are not “superheroes” that will run across campus to protect you, the vehemently defenseless. They leave that option up to you. If an incident were to happen in the vicinity of a CHL holder while on campus, the threat would be taken care of for the safety of that CHL holder.
A CHL is an individual responsibility. “We” are not there to protect “you”. If concealed carry on campus was adopted and you still refused to carry, then that’s fine. It’s your personal choice and everyone will respect that. But don’t let that choice affect how others live their lives.
By “a lot”, I assume you believe that is concealed carry on campus was adopted a bunch of students would run out and get their CHL. Even if a few more people, namely faculty and a few students who qualified, would get their CHL I doubt it would make so much as a dent in the percentage of students who actually have their CHL. Many people even outside of school don’t have a CHL, so how can you say “a lot” so easily?
Some people are not “responsible or mature enough to hold and handle” a pistol. How responsible or mature do you have to be to “hold” A pistol? A gun? We’ve got 18 year olds we trust with our country’s security, so this “maturity” can’t be based on age. Perhaps it has something to do with how you view guns in general. Earlier in your rebuttal you subconsciously connected guns and gangs together. That lead me to believe you do not have much experience around firearms in general, which is ok. Some people do not feel comfortable around guns at all. The same could be said for cars, religions, and drugs. It’s ok if you or others who aren’t as “responsible” as some don’t get their CHL, but like I have said previously: Do not take away the right of someone else just because you are uncomfortable around it.
These individuals deserve the chance for self protection, just like anyone else. If they choose against it, that is their personal choice which will be respected.
No, it does not put the responsibility on “me” or any other person who supports concealed carry. Individual safety is the responsibility of the individual. A person with a CHL gets the CHL for the same reason they wear a seatbelt or have accidental coverage life insurance: They hope that they will never have to use their concealed handgun, but if the one in a million situation did arise they would use it and save themselves. These people are not heroes, they are your run-of-the-mill citizens who value their lives and the lives of their families. The understand that sometimes bad things happen to good people and the only thing stopping it sometimes is an individual willing to stand up and refuse to be a victim.
If this someone’s heroes include people like Ted Bundy and Charles Manson, then yes that definition would apply.
First I’d like to say that’s a bad place to be in. I feel for you, but that “inconvenience” can happen again. You could have gotten a CHL after that incident, yes, but you would have considered yourself at that point paranoid and always “looking over” your shoulder for people that might try to mug you. That sounds like sage advise for anyone, mug-victim or not. It’s not being paranoid, it’s having an ounce of situational awareness. It’s not “living in fear”, it’s living with the knowledge that this world is not a cushy, safe place and living with the responsibility of your own self preservation. This doesn’t mean owning a gun and carrying it around. That could easily be replaced with a knife, lessons at local dojo, or carrying around a can of pepper spray. Would those people be paranoid? If someone is mugged and comes out of it with a healthy respect for understanding what’s going on around them, I’d say they made it out ok.
Again you have come back to the same scenario. “Well they have a gun, and I’ll probably die anyway, so what’s the point of fighting back?” It’s your choice not to carry a gun for protection, but don’t push the responsibility of your safety onto others around you.
Your wallet may not be worth your life, but what if it’s not your wallet? What if they kill you for fun? What if they are angry at society? What if they see you on the street and for one reason or another think, “Look at that big fat Mexican, let’s go kick his ass right back to Mexico!” You can’t equate every situation where you would need to take responsibility for your own self protection to a small mugging.
I would love it if you pointed me to the places where you pull this statistic. Because honestly, even in my paper there were citations to articles debunking this statement.
One thing that is different from my paper’s scenarios and yours: Mine are legally correct.
First off, carrying on Northgate would be pointless. When you go to Northgate, you go to drink. Seeing as how the state of Texas doesn’t allow concealed carry in places that serve alcohol, that makes the scenario a bit unrealistic.
Another thing is your insistence on believing that everyone who carries a concealed weapon (whether that be a gun, a knife, pepper spray, rape whistle, etc) are paranoid emotionally challenged trigger-happy people who are just itching for a good gunfight. This also leads me to believe that you think you have never truly met someone who carries on a regular basis. However I know for fact that you have, because they are just normal people you’ll meet on a day-to-day basis. How many times have you been to Walmart in your life? I will guarantee you that you were behind or in front of someone in line that carried a concealed pistol.
You’re still alive today, so your scenario doesn’t work in that respect either.
So, I’m done. The lecture from the student is over. Probably hasn’t changed your mind, but that’s not what I’m asking you to do. I’m asking you to keep an open mind. All I want from you is to think about it.
-N. Kennedy
So I get to looking at it, turning the pages, looking for things that was wrong with it. I don't see anything. No red-marks on the paper at all.
On the last page, I get this.
That's it? No other explaination? Even though my citations showed factual occurances and links to law databases?
So I look closer. And I found two pieces of paper, typed up, that wasn't there when I handed the paper in.
He typed up a two page rebuttal to my position. :banghead:
You know, biased English teachers are a pain in the you know what. So I sat down and wrote a rebuttal to his. I'm trying to be as educational as possible, but sometimes....
His rebuttal is in quotes. I broke it up into each argument.
Reynaldo,
I understand your sentiments. Trust me; I hear them all the time. But in your response to my paper I can see that you strongly disagree with the idea of students carrying concealed weapons on campus. I'll try to break your arguments down and present them to you in a way that might make more sense.
Even if you do not carry a concealed weapon you will always be protect by those who carry them. Albeit unconsciously. Don't simply look at Texas's concealed carry laws (Which I'm sure you have researched, right?), take for instance Colorado, Florida, Vermont (where open carry is allowed) or North Carolina. Any state, in fact, that allows for CHL. If it is actively known in that state that someone can carry, then it acts as a deterrent for some criminals. They could be looking to rob the staunchest anti-firearm lobbyist in the state, but they wouldn't know whether or not they had a firearm. There was a poll taken a few years back in max security prisons across the country. It asked the inmates what they most feared while attempting to rob someone. It wasn't the police or jail time they were afraid of. I can't remember the statistic, so I'm not going to BS it, but a huge percentage said the only thing deterring them oftentimes were if the homeowner or civilian was armed or not.
But to answer that first question, who knows? Maybe I'm across campus. Perhaps you'll be long gone before I reach the age where I legally can carry a pistol concealed. If I heard gunshots I certainly wouldn't dive under a desk and wait to be shot, if that‘s what you mean. It depends on the circumstance, as does everything else. But for the most part a CHL is protection for the individual that owns it. Why should you even bring it up that I should protect you? You're of the age to get your CHL, so why would you shove your responsibility of self preservation onto someone else?
First off, heroes don't usually have large asses. Look at batman, superman, etc. You being the nerd you are I would have hoped you could have seen that.
As for you carrying a handgun, well you have already said you don't feel comfortable with it. I'm all for letting faculty carrying concealed on campus, it simply makes sense. The teacher who died at the VT shooting died while holding a door closed from Cho as student escaped through the window. If there had been a faculty member present with a concealed weapon the results would have been different.
Well I'm glad we agree, then, because the dueling scenario is rather comic bookish. But you are right, if someone's going to catch you by surprise then there's not much you can do (not taking into account the "gun in face" scenario, which I hope you realize is the easiest way to not get shot. The closer the barrel is to your head, the easier it is to get out of the line of fire).
In your scenario I think you fail to observe how quickly a gun can be un-holstered. Have you ever seen the holsters people use for concealed carry? Or the way their pistols are carried? You'd be surprised at just how quickly it can be done.
However, simply because these scenarios exist doesn't mean that people can't have some fighting chance. The way you say it is almost like a doctor telling a patient, "Listen, you've got some hardass cancer growing on your gut and you don't have much of a chance at all. Let's just skip the meds and pump you with morphine until your kids can collect the life insurance, m'kay?"
Numerous students tried to rush Cho at the VT shooting. They were all shot. Those who didn't rush were killed literally execution style. This all occurred over a 30 minute time-span. The beauty of concealed carry is that first part: concealed. No one knows what you have. With that shooting, there was plenty of time for someone to draw and stop Cho before anyone could get seriously injured. But that didn't happen, because according to you the current system is doing a great job of stopping kids from shooting up their schools.
Equating students, especially legally licensed concealed carrying students, to gang members is quite a stretch. But if I follow you here (without questioning how many gang-related shootings you have witnessed), I think I see what you are saying. You are still perpetuating the "it wont do any good, why bother?" argument. When saying "they all get shot", does that include the bad guy too?
If it does, I'd say that's a step in the right direction. The next step is for you not to associate guns with gangs. If you want, I'll take you shooting one day. I could even take you to one of my pistol competitions. Not many gang members there, though, so don't get your hopes up.
Again, not doubting your knowledge on the subject at all, but how many "close range" (which would actually be "normal range") gun fights have you personally studied? Proficiency with a handgun at normal ranges where it would be used in self defense (according to the FBI statistic, it's 7 yards) is not hard to do. Even with adrenaline pumping. Reynaldo, I could teach you how to be proficient at 7 yards if you wanted. You speak of crossfire, which is something I'd think of as dealing with squad based machineguns. However all of this really relates back to the fact that somehow you don't think that a student bent on bodily harm should be stopped with equal or greater force. For your sake, let's think about the other scenario, besides the one where the in-proficient student doesn't fire at the crazed gunman. That student, along with a lot of others, ends up dead.
But thank god there wasn't a firefight, right?
Something you don't know about me is that I also fence. I've learned the moves, the stylized combat, all that jazz. When I got into a spar, as you have said, sometimes the opponent was extremely random and it took a bit of guessing. However if you practiced, like I had, you could see where the lunges were coming from. It was not impossible.
But didn't you just say it wouldn't likely be a "duel"? Forget the fencing analogy. We learned the fencing for competition use, not the one used to kill people.
So "me" shooting "him/her" is a bad thing because he will still be shooting in random directions that might hit "you" or others (ignoring the fact that this hermaphroditic shooter would have multiple center of mass bullet holes). So again we have hit a reoccurring theme of your rebuttal. You are against having qualified CHL holders carrying while in the classroom or on campus in general but you concede that shootings occur and people die but it is somehow better that they die unable to protect themselves. A CHL gives you the right to carry protection with you for yourself. These people are not “superheroes” that will run across campus to protect you, the vehemently defenseless. They leave that option up to you. If an incident were to happen in the vicinity of a CHL holder while on campus, the threat would be taken care of for the safety of that CHL holder.
A CHL is an individual responsibility. “We” are not there to protect “you”. If concealed carry on campus was adopted and you still refused to carry, then that’s fine. It’s your personal choice and everyone will respect that. But don’t let that choice affect how others live their lives.
By “a lot”, I assume you believe that is concealed carry on campus was adopted a bunch of students would run out and get their CHL. Even if a few more people, namely faculty and a few students who qualified, would get their CHL I doubt it would make so much as a dent in the percentage of students who actually have their CHL. Many people even outside of school don’t have a CHL, so how can you say “a lot” so easily?
Some people are not “responsible or mature enough to hold and handle” a pistol. How responsible or mature do you have to be to “hold” A pistol? A gun? We’ve got 18 year olds we trust with our country’s security, so this “maturity” can’t be based on age. Perhaps it has something to do with how you view guns in general. Earlier in your rebuttal you subconsciously connected guns and gangs together. That lead me to believe you do not have much experience around firearms in general, which is ok. Some people do not feel comfortable around guns at all. The same could be said for cars, religions, and drugs. It’s ok if you or others who aren’t as “responsible” as some don’t get their CHL, but like I have said previously: Do not take away the right of someone else just because you are uncomfortable around it.
These individuals deserve the chance for self protection, just like anyone else. If they choose against it, that is their personal choice which will be respected.
No, it does not put the responsibility on “me” or any other person who supports concealed carry. Individual safety is the responsibility of the individual. A person with a CHL gets the CHL for the same reason they wear a seatbelt or have accidental coverage life insurance: They hope that they will never have to use their concealed handgun, but if the one in a million situation did arise they would use it and save themselves. These people are not heroes, they are your run-of-the-mill citizens who value their lives and the lives of their families. The understand that sometimes bad things happen to good people and the only thing stopping it sometimes is an individual willing to stand up and refuse to be a victim.
If this someone’s heroes include people like Ted Bundy and Charles Manson, then yes that definition would apply.
First I’d like to say that’s a bad place to be in. I feel for you, but that “inconvenience” can happen again. You could have gotten a CHL after that incident, yes, but you would have considered yourself at that point paranoid and always “looking over” your shoulder for people that might try to mug you. That sounds like sage advise for anyone, mug-victim or not. It’s not being paranoid, it’s having an ounce of situational awareness. It’s not “living in fear”, it’s living with the knowledge that this world is not a cushy, safe place and living with the responsibility of your own self preservation. This doesn’t mean owning a gun and carrying it around. That could easily be replaced with a knife, lessons at local dojo, or carrying around a can of pepper spray. Would those people be paranoid? If someone is mugged and comes out of it with a healthy respect for understanding what’s going on around them, I’d say they made it out ok.
Again you have come back to the same scenario. “Well they have a gun, and I’ll probably die anyway, so what’s the point of fighting back?” It’s your choice not to carry a gun for protection, but don’t push the responsibility of your safety onto others around you.
Your wallet may not be worth your life, but what if it’s not your wallet? What if they kill you for fun? What if they are angry at society? What if they see you on the street and for one reason or another think, “Look at that big fat Mexican, let’s go kick his ass right back to Mexico!” You can’t equate every situation where you would need to take responsibility for your own self protection to a small mugging.
I would love it if you pointed me to the places where you pull this statistic. Because honestly, even in my paper there were citations to articles debunking this statement.
One thing that is different from my paper’s scenarios and yours: Mine are legally correct.
First off, carrying on Northgate would be pointless. When you go to Northgate, you go to drink. Seeing as how the state of Texas doesn’t allow concealed carry in places that serve alcohol, that makes the scenario a bit unrealistic.
Another thing is your insistence on believing that everyone who carries a concealed weapon (whether that be a gun, a knife, pepper spray, rape whistle, etc) are paranoid emotionally challenged trigger-happy people who are just itching for a good gunfight. This also leads me to believe that you think you have never truly met someone who carries on a regular basis. However I know for fact that you have, because they are just normal people you’ll meet on a day-to-day basis. How many times have you been to Walmart in your life? I will guarantee you that you were behind or in front of someone in line that carried a concealed pistol.
You’re still alive today, so your scenario doesn’t work in that respect either.
So, I’m done. The lecture from the student is over. Probably hasn’t changed your mind, but that’s not what I’m asking you to do. I’m asking you to keep an open mind. All I want from you is to think about it.
-N. Kennedy
