Students assaulted at my campus.

[BBQLS1]

Can I get a link?

 

[sernv99]

Freaks like Cho Seung Hui aren't looking for a shoot out. They're looking for a shooting gallery full of helpless victims. He didn't go to a police station. He went to a "gun free" zone.

yeah we forgot, you actually sat down with him before he went on his rampage and asked him why he was going to shoot up a campus rather than a mall or his neighborhood. You logic says that rampaging killers look for gun free zones So if he got teased by the local kids in his neighborhood, he wouldn't had went on a rampage in his 'hood because he knows folks can possibly be armed?

You seem to be saying that the age for a concealed firearm credential should be higher than it is. HOW high? 25? 30? 40? You assumed wrong. The respondent to my posting indicated juniors and seniors will be more mature than a freshman or sophmore. Point out exactly where I indicated CWP age should be higher and I'll give you a cookie, otherwise reread the postings.

 

[metallic]

you are right, not all college kids are punks. All it takes is one or two to act irresponsibly with a gun and ruin it for the rest of us. As I say again, ever been around a bunch of 18-22 year olds? Ever see how a guy acts when he finds out his gf was banging some other guy on campus? Or what goes on at a frat party? Or what happens after the school's team wins the NCAA championship? All it takes is one belligerent idiot kid with a CW to start blasting away in anger to screw things up for the rest of us.

The point about an 18 year old having a CCW is completely moot. In most states, the minimum age for a permit is 21. At the point where you are a junior or senior, I would consider you a pretty mature person because A) You have managed to make it 2 or 3 years without actually flunking out B) You've managed to maintain your finances to the point where you are still able to continue to afford to attend. That requires a level of maturity that quite a few adults outside of university can't achieve. This also happens to be the approximate age range of quite a few soldiers that are fighting and dying as we speak in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are you also saying they aren't mature enough to have a weapon in a high stress environment?

Your point about fraternity parties is again moot. In the state of Louisiana, you are considered legally intoxicated while carrying if you have a BAC of 0.05% or higher. For everyone else here, the legal limit is 0.08% like everywhere else in the country. If you are carrying you aren't drinking, and these kinds of parties aren't all that fun if you're sober. Get caught over the limit while carrying and you lose the permit that you spent $250 and 8 hours in class in order to attain. Hell, it's been nearly 30 days and I still might have another 3 weeks until I get it in the mail. I'm not doing anything to screw that up once I get it.

As for your "one belligerent kid" argument, that's ludicrous as well. You don't need a CCW to do something stupid with a firearm. I would also venture to argue that those with a CCW would be extremely unlikely to be one to perpetrate something like this. Since Florida went to a "shall issue" permit system, the revocation rate has been less than 1%. These aren't the people you should be worried about.

Disclaimer: I'm 26, been out of college for four years and an alumnus of Louisiana Tech University.

 

[Deanimator]

yeah we forgot, you actually sat down with him before he went on his rampage and asked him why he was going to shoot up a campus rather than a mall or his neighborhood. You logic says that rampaging killers look for gun free zones So if he got teased by the local kids in his neighborhood, he wouldn't had went on a rampage in his 'hood because he knows folks can possibly be armed?

Where did he GO? To a "gun free zone".

Where did most of the rest GO? To a "gun free zone".

In fact, the degenerate who shot up a Jewish community center went there after rejecting the Holocaust Museum(?) because the latter had ARMED GUARDS.

I believe it was Willy Sutton who in response to the question "Why do you rob banks?" replied, "Because that's where the money is."

Freaks like Cho, etc. go places where they can SHOOT, NOT where they can be SHOT. And in most instances they shoot THEMSELVES when they can no longer shoot the unarmed and the helpless.

 

[sernv99]

In most states, the minimum age for a permit is 21. At the point where you are a junior or senior, I would consider you a pretty mature person because A) You have managed to make it 2 or 3 years without actually flunking out B) You've managed to maintain your finances to the point where you are still able to continue to afford to attend. That requires a level of maturity that quite a few adults outside of university can't achieve

that's great and all that you think juniors or seniors are mature because they got that far in college and managed to continue on with school. So I guess the other portion of the student population who receive money from mom and dad and have scholarships and grants aren't really a concern then. When you inject the phrase "I would consider" to make a generalization about the student population, you have no argument. how can you debate someone by injecting your opinion. My argument was that there exists a belligerent group of kids on college campuses, whether they are freshmen or seniors. If you don't believe this is true, I wonder what "college" you went to, seminary school? LOL

This also happens to be the approximate age range of quite a few soldiers that are fighting and dying as we speak in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are you also saying they aren't mature enough to have a weapon in a high stress environment?

so you are comparing a college kid CCW'ing with a soldier of the same age? Bad argument considering the context is not even in the same league. One being order, while under fire, to shoot, the other being an average Joe in bumblefcuk USA attending college. What, someone in the US has more to worry than a someone on patrol on the streets of Mosul? Pleaseeeeee If you want to compare the two as similar well I'm sure alot of mil folks and vets will disagree with you.

Your point about fraternity parties is again moot. In the state of Louisiana, you are considered legally intoxicated while carrying if you have a BAC of 0.05% or higher. For everyone else here, the legal limit is 0.08% like everywhere else in the country. If you are carrying you aren't drinking, and these kinds of parties aren't all that fun if you're sober..

fine and dandy about what YOUR perceptions are but how can you say for sure no one is going to carry while drinking? Do you have proof that no one in your state carries while drinking? The rest of your statements are based on your opinions on what makes a party "fun". Well guess what, someone else may not think the same way. So your point is??

Where did he GO? To a "gun free zone".

Where did most of the rest GO? To a "gun free zone".

he went to his school because that's where he had his trouble. LOL Duh!! Why would he go to the local supermarket? Or the mall?

And your second question: well I guess those shootings in Alabama or Miami must be exceptions to your "rule".

as for Willy Sutton, well all those robberies at gas stations, convenience stores, bodegas, etc the criminals must had been after a Coke and a Ding Dong rather than the money.

 

[metallic]

When you inject the phrase "I would consider" to make a generalization about the student population, you have no argument. how can you debate someone by injecting your opinion.

You've been injecting your "opinion" into this thread the whole time. Pot, meet kettle? Tell you what, find me one incident of a permit holder getting into a unjustifiable shooting on a college campus and I'll eat crow.

 

[Gamera]

Well I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here, which is fine.
I think you should take a look at this thread to see what more people think about this issue. It contains some good arguments for the position that Deanimator and I hold. Beyond that though, I have nothing more to contribute to this thread.

 

[inclinebench]

He went to his school, yes, after going to the post office off campus. Post office next to mall, huge grocery store, and several reasturants. He went to a classroom he did not have a class in...he shot students in classes he did not attend. He avoided the local malls and grocery stores and reasturants because though teaming with college students, they are teaming with people holding CCW. He picked the sheep. He did not go to the military dorms because those guys while not armed, would probably be harder to slaughter. He did not go to a "Jock" classroom, he went for the easiest targets. And had the professor, the holocost survivor, who sacrificed himself to try and save some students, been armed, I have no doubt that Cho would have killed far fewer people. Had one student in those classrooms been carrying, the odds are there would have been many fewer deaths.

 

[Deanimator]

he went to his school because that's where he had his trouble. LOL Duh!! Why would he go to the local supermarket? Or the mall?

I'll tell you one likely reason. When I go to the grocery store here in a few minutes, I'll be carrying a gun. Were I a student at Virginia Tech and to do likewise, I could be expelled. Most of these walking tumors CONSCIOUSLY seek out places where there won't be anyone to effectively resist them.

And your second question: well I guess those shootings in Alabama or Miami must be exceptions to your "rule".

Were the shootings in Miami pursuant to some rational criminal purpose or were they ends in themselves?
Did the metal company in Alabama allow carry on the premises?

Your "argument" regarding college students and CCW applies equally to cops. If "binge drinking" by SOME college students justifies making them disarmed, helpless victims for the Chos of this world, then similar behavior by SOME police justifies disarming them.

Your examples merely add credence to my argument. Predators look for young, sick or wounded prey, not the strong and the dangerous which may harm them. You are arguing for the continued provision to them of that prey.

 

[Deer Hunter]

I disagree, I don't see how "maturity" increases significantly over the course of 2 years, i.e. 19 to 21.

I've had to contend with professors who are more idiotic and immature than I am.

So what's your point?

You're elitist. Get your facts straight before you try pushing a point.

 

[Nozoki]

You seem to be saying that the age for a concealed firearm credential should be higher than it is. HOW high? 25? 30? 40?

You assumed wrong. The respondent to my posting indicated juniors and seniors will be more mature than a freshman or sophmore. Point out exactly where I indicated CWP age should be higher and I'll give you a cookie, otherwise reread the postings.

Well, your argument is that a 21 year old college senior is not much more mature than a 17 year old freshman, so the senior should not be allowed to carry a concealed handgun even though he is legally old enough. That gives the impression that you are against 21 year olds being allowed to carry because you think 21 is not mature enough. If that's the case, then wouldn't you want the age requirements raised?

 

[Deanimator]

Well, your argument is that a 21 year old college senior is not much more mature than a 17 year old freshman, so the senior should not be allowed to carry a concealed handgun even though he is legally old enough. That gives the impression that you are against 21 year olds being allowed to carry because you think 21 is not mature enough. If that's the case, then wouldn't you want the age requirements raised?

You'd think that, wouldn't you?

But that would require what they call on "Law & Order", a statement against penal interest. I think that if he were to admit that, he'd be admitting to motivations which he has been less than candid about. If not 21? Why 25? I've seen 50 and 80 year olds less mature and rational than some 21 year olds. I wonder whether he thinks there should be "shall issue" CCW AT ALL.

 

[Deer Hunter]

I wonder if sernv99 has ever talked to a member of SCCC.

Or anyone who would actually carry on campus (there wouldn't be that many).

Of course, us college guys are all drunk, partying, Comm majors.

 

[sernv99]

I'll tell you one likely reason. When I go to the grocery store here in a few minutes, I'll be carrying a gun. Were I a student at Virginia Tech and to do likewise, I could be expelled. Most of these walking tumors CONSCIOUSLY seek out places where there won't be anyone to effectively resist them. and your point is? How would Cho know someone was CCW'ing in a supermarket or at a mall? Not everyone CCW here in VA. Just because a state has a shall issue provision with respect to CCW doesn't mean every John and Jane is going to be packing. Seems like a fantasy of yours.

Were the shootings in Miami pursuant to some rational criminal purpose or were they ends in themselves? uhh yeah, do you know where they took place? Do you know such actions took place in that area of Miami?

Your "argument" regarding college students and CCW applies equally to cops. If "binge drinking" by SOME college students justifies making them disarmed, helpless victims for the Chos of this world, then similar behavior by SOME police justifies disarming them. If you really want to be around a frat house on a Sat night with SOME college kids "binge drinking" and SOME college kids CCWing, be my guest.

Your examples merely add credence to my argument. Predators look for young, sick or wounded prey, not the strong and the dangerous which may harm them. You are arguing for the continued provision to them of that prey. so you claim my arguments help your fallacies? Typical of someone who knows when he is beat, to say the other person's arguments help their case.


You're elitist. Get your facts straight before you try pushing a point. Translation: I didn't post any facts, thus I'm resorting to name calling and throwing a temper tantrum.

 

[okespe04]

Let them carry at the beginning of their junior year. Something changes in college kids once they get over the hump.

 

[Deer Hunter]

Pearls before swine.

Call it what you will, but you can't hide the fact that you are really not too incredibly versed in this topic. Your position flies in the face of logical arguments that have been brought before THR time and time again. If you really want to learn and better your position (doubtful, you simply like stirring up stuff on the internet it seems), go to the SCCC's website.

Get armed with facts.

 

[Deanimator]

I'll tell you one likely reason. When I go to the grocery store here in a few minutes, I'll be carrying a gun. Were I a student at Virginia Tech and to do likewise, I could be expelled. Most of these walking tumors CONSCIOUSLY seek out places where there won't be anyone to effectively resist them. and your point is?

How would Cho know someone was CCW'ing in a supermarket or at a mall? Not everyone CCW here in VA. Just because a state has a shall issue provision with respect to CCW doesn't mean every John and Jane is going to be packing. Seems like a fantasy of yours.

That's the point. He WOULDN'T know if somebody was carrying at the grocery store or mall. On the other hand, he's got a pretty good assurance that NOBODY would be at VT. He wanted to SHOOT, NOT be SHOT, except at his own hand.

Were the shootings in Miami pursuant to some rational criminal purpose or were they ends in themselves?

uhh yeah, do you know where they took place? Do you know such actions took place in that area of Miami?

You didn't answer my questions.

Your "argument" regarding college students and CCW applies equally to cops. If "binge drinking" by SOME college students justifies making them disarmed, helpless victims for the Chos of this world, then similar behavior by SOME police justifies disarming them.

If you really want to be around a frat house on a Sat night with SOME college kids "binge drinking" and SOME college kids CCWing, be my guest.

Again, no answer. SOME college kids binge drink. SOME cops binge drink. If that justifies disarming one group, it justifies disarming the other. You showed NO connection between those who binge drink and those who carry concealed, just as I showed no connection between cops IN GENERAL who carry guns and cops who binge drink. You tried guilt by association. You FAILED.

Your examples merely add credence to my argument. Predators look for young, sick or wounded prey, not the strong and the dangerous which may harm them. You are arguing for the continued provision to them of that prey.

so you claim my arguments help your fallacies? Typical of someone who knows when he is beat, to say the other person's arguments help their case.

Your "arguments" ARE fallacies, and pretty transparent ones at that. Not only have you not supported your own baseless assertions, on the contrary, every assertion you make REFUTES your own claims.

 

[indoorsoccerfrea]

Correct me if I am wrong. There seems to be three types of opinions here.

1) All college kids old enough should be able to carry on campus.

2) All college kids are not mature enough and should not be allowed to carry on campus.

3) Most college kids are immature, and while there are also many who should be able to carry, how can you separate the mature from the immature.

 

[SpecialKalltheway]

wow so much to sound off about in this one I hardly know where to start. Let's start with a general blanket statement as if I was the first poster and if I have time later I will get back to some of the good and the bad comments on this.

You know what I did this morning? I went to class with my gun. You know what happened? No one got shot! wow what a surprise!!!! A typical college student that has never handled a gun is easily categorized as irresponsible. One this as gun advocates that we should all realize is that you introduce shooting into ones life and you introduce responsibility. You age doesn't matter, there are many older fellows that I would not trust with a gun and many younger ones as well. Not trusting a few is the reason our rights to own guns is in question in the first place. There will always be idiots that "accidentally" shoot themselves or others. You shouldn't have to take away the rights of all to protect the few. Well I'll add more later right now my lunch break is over and I have to attend a class while carrying my gun, this is the class that my teacher said in front of 200 students "you have to look at the 2nd amendment in context, I don't think people need guns to shoot their neighbors when their music is to loud." a hard class to sit through as you can imagine.

 

[Deanimator]

3) Most college kids are immature, and while there are also many who should be able to carry, how can you separate the mature from the immature.

1. How do you make that determination with the non-college student public at large?

2. Is it ok for a 21 year old highschool dropout working in a body shop to carry? If so, why him and not a 21 year old college student? Do no highschool dropouts "binge drink"? Do no 50 year old patent attorneys?

At the core of the argument against allowing qualified college students to carry concealed on campus is the argument against allowing ANYONE to carry concealed ANYWHERE.

 

[SpecialKalltheway]

wow so much to sound off about in this one I hardly know where to start. Let's start with a general blanket statement as if I was the first poster and if I have time later I will get back to some of the good and the bad comments on this.

You know what I did this morning? I went to class with my gun. You know what happened? No one got shot! wow what a surprise!!!!

A typical college student that has never handled a gun is easily categorized as irresponsible. One thing as gun advocates that we should all realize is that when you introduce shooting into ones life and you introduce responsibility. You age doesn't matter, there are many older fellows that I would not trust with a gun and many younger ones as well. Not trusting a few is the reason our rights to own guns is in question in the first place. There will always be idiots that "accidentally" shoot themselves or others. You shouldn't have to take away the rights of all to protect the few.

Well I'll add more later right now my lunch break is over and I have to attend a class while carrying my gun, this is the class that my teacher said in front of 200 students "you have to look at the 2nd amendment in context, I don't think people need guns to shoot their neighbors when their music is to loud." a hard class to sit through as you can imagine.

 

[indoorsoccerfrea]

deanimator, I don't follow... could you repeat that in different words for me? thanks! I do not hold that opinion, btw.

 

[Deanimator]

You want to avoid shark attack while swimming:

You swim off the coast of South Africa. You don't know whether you'll be attacked by a shark. People have. You might be. The odds are that there are sharks.

You swim in Lincoln Park Lagoon in Chicago. You've never heard of a shark attack there.

Which one minimizes your chance of shark attack while swimming to the greatest degree?

You want to shoot the greatest amount of innocent people without danger of effective resistance from someone with a concealed firearm:

You go to a grocery store in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Virginia. You don't know if anyone is carrying a concealed firearm or who they are. The odds are that SOMEBODY is and you have no way to know who.

You go to Virginia Tech. Firearms are FORBIDDEN on campus. Institutional culture probably deprecates both concealed firearms and effective self-defense in general.

Which one minimizes your chance of being shot by an intended mass murder victim to the greatest degree?

 

[indoorsoccerfrea]

Obviously that would be VT. I agree with you. Firearms are not for everyone, but everyone has the right unless they have screwed up (i.e. criminal history).

 

[Deanimator]

deanimator, I don't follow... could you repeat that in different words for me? thanks! I do not hold that opinion, btw.

I didn't think you did. It explicitly addresses something that SernV99 is tiptoeing around.

EVERY reason he's used to deny college students effective self-defense applies equally to the population at large and police in particular.

His "argument" against college CCW is at its core an argument against "shall issue".