It is currently Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:10 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
 Gun-Free Zone = Victim-Rich Environment? 

Should properly-licensed holders of concealed weapons permits be allowed to carry weapons on campuses?
Yes, because I should carry anywhere the bad guys do 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Maybe - depends on how proper the licenses are 100%  100%  [ 4 ]
Teachers, maybe - students, no 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
NOES - Gunz teh EVILZZ!!!11!!!11 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 4

 Gun-Free Zone = Victim-Rich Environment? 
Author Message
Chibi-Czar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 9:05 am
Posts: 1590
Location: Out past Fort Mudge
Post Gun-Free Zone = Victim-Rich Environment?
Some college students think so: Empty Holster protest on-campus

I'm not wildly enthused about the proposition (mostly b/c I consider the majority of the states' CCW training requirements to be inadequate to the task - but my answer to that is to expand and improve the training syllabus), but I remember the comment Massad Ayoob had about the hooraw over the Armed Pilots Program:
Massad Ayoob wrote:
"A pilot with a gun could make things worse?" How could things on the four airliners hijacked and used to murder three thousand people on September 11th possibly have been worse if a pilot had had the wherewithal to stop the bastards?


Same question: "How could things at Virginia Tech possibly been worse if a responsible student or teacher had had the wherewithal to stop the bastard?"

_________________
"Charlie was a policeman, Nick-san. If you steal, you disgrace him. And me. And yourself..."

"Tough times don't last. Tough people do."

"You have the rest of your life to solve your problems. How long you live depends on how well you do it."

Token Reactionary S.O.B.


Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:36 am
Profile
WAR SysOp
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:56 pm
Posts: 3479
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Post 
I vote "Depends on how proper the licence is" mainly because I'm solidly convinced that if you give guns to the vigilante mob, things WILL get worse, especially in a school environment; but they ARE just tools and the intent can definitely be a good one.

Problem: Overreaction in an immature environment. Even university/technical school/college is not the bastion of mature thought parents sometimes make it out to be. You generally have a bunch of post High School people tasting "freedom" for the first time. Giving the whack of them guns is retarded. You'll see people drawing when Girl and Boy break up, or during the numerous intense emotion times such as heavy drinking, failing classes, or parents aren't happy with my grades.

Solution: Make a mental evaluation part of a campus-level concealed arms permit. Make sure the person, teacher/student or whatever, can handle the responsible HIDDEN use of a gun, and understands the purpose of the weapon if an emergency occurs. All this...and make sure they can handle the gun as well as any concealed arms permit normally does.

In a perfect world, even running them through some simulations would be awesome...but I suppose that's a bit too much. :P

_________________

Christopher Fiss
W.A.R. SysOp


Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:03 pm
Profile
Chibi-Czar
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 9:14 pm
Posts: 2769
Location: Location, Location!
Post Re: Gun-Free Zone = Victim-Rich Environment?
Michael J Doyle wrote:
Massad Ayoob wrote:
"A pilot with a gun could make things worse?" How could things on the four airliners hijacked and used to murder three thousand people on September 11th possibly have been worse if a pilot had had the wherewithal to stop the bastards?


Same question: "How could things at Virginia Tech possibly been worse if a responsible student or teacher had had the wherewithal to stop the bastard?"


1) I'd like to point out that the unarmed passengers stopped one of the hijackings on 9-11, without any of them being armed.

2) More gunfire from amateur shooters in a crowded room during a panicky moment? I have no idea how such a thing could ever turn out bad.

_________________
Image


"Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step to true panic."
--Freefall

A file that big?
It might be very useful.
But now it is gone.
-- David J. Liszewski


Sat Oct 27, 2007 3:41 pm
Profile
Chibi-Czar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 9:05 am
Posts: 1590
Location: Out past Fort Mudge
Post Re: Gun-Free Zone = Victim-Rich Environment?
Anony-mouse wrote:
1) I'd like to point out that the unarmed passengers stopped one of the hijackings on 9-11, without any of them being armed.
And, in return, I'd like to point out that the unarmed passengers and crew could NOT stop THREE of the hijackings on 9-11. Furthermore, a smoking hole in a field outside Shanksville, PA is still not what I'd call a clear-cut win, although I am suitably grateful that the Capitol building is not a smoking hole in the ground.

Quote:
2) More gunfire from amateur shooters in a crowded room during a panicky moment? I have no idea how such a thing could ever turn out bad.
Define "bad". For purposes of discussion, nutjob opens fire, kills two-three before 'amateur shooter" (licensed teacher/student) clears leather, possible two-to-three stray rounds before he puts the nutjob down. Three-to-four dead, one-to-two wounded. Still not what I'd call a clear-cut win, but..

Consider the alternative. NO amateur shooters, thirty-two dead, seventeen wounded - not counting nutjob committing suicide. Nope, nothing bad about THAT, compared to the idea of an amateur screwing up, is there?

_________________
"Charlie was a policeman, Nick-san. If you steal, you disgrace him. And me. And yourself..."

"Tough times don't last. Tough people do."

"You have the rest of your life to solve your problems. How long you live depends on how well you do it."

Token Reactionary S.O.B.


Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:14 pm
Profile
WAR SysOp
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:56 pm
Posts: 3479
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Post 
Michael J Doyle wrote:
Consider the alternative. NO amateur shooters, thirty-two dead, seventeen wounded - not counting nutjob committing suicide. Nope, nothing bad about THAT, compared to the idea of an amateur screwing up, is there?


It's not the "what would happen when everything is going to hell and bullets are flying" situation that I'd be worried about having amateurs with guns in.

It's the other 364 days of the year where having amateurs with guns would NOT be a benefit that worries me.

This is the problem with the "should citizens be armed" debate: The "Yes" pile is full of excellent examples where people take action and save the day...nobody is questioning that part. However...Normally, you don't NEED to be armed, and having the capacity for a life threatening accident, overreaction, or needless escalation of a confrontation end up on the "No" pile.

This is why training and skill are vital so we don't have a bunch of amateurs running around with guns...we have a bunch of responsible citizens concerned for public safety running around with guns.

_________________

Christopher Fiss
W.A.R. SysOp


Sat Oct 27, 2007 7:05 pm
Profile
Chibi-Czar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 9:05 am
Posts: 1590
Location: Out past Fort Mudge
Post 
Christopher Fiss wrote:
It's not the "what would happen when everything is going to hell and bullets are flying" situation that I'd be worried about having amateurs with guns in.

It's the other 364 days of the year where having amateurs with guns would NOT be a benefit that worries me.

This is the problem with the "should citizens be armed" debate: The "Yes" pile is full of excellent examples where people take action and save the day...nobody is questioning that part.
Actually, SC just did.
Quote:
However...Normally, you don't NEED to be armed, and having the capacity for a life threatening accident, overreaction, or needless escalation of a confrontation end up on the "No" pile.

This is why training and skill are vital so we don't have a bunch of amateurs running around with guns...we have a bunch of responsible citizens concerned for public safety running around with guns.
Agreed, hence my lack of wild enthusiasm and my "Maybe" vote.

Normally, you don't need to be armed. The drawback to that is there's no means of predicting the day you will need to be armed.

No screening process is going to catch all the nutters (vide the young sheriff's deputy in Wisconsin who took out his ex-girlfriend and the rest of her party with his issue AR-15) but, in an effort to weed out the grossly unsuitable, I'd prefer to make the requirements at least as stringent as the Armed Pilots program I referred to in the OP. I'd settle for a licensing process that's at least somewhat more rigorous on training than many states have at present. It'd be costly, tedious, and exasperating, particularly for the would-be license holders, and, I rather expect, for the ostriches in academia, as well...

It still beats the hell out of the alternative.

_________________
"Charlie was a policeman, Nick-san. If you steal, you disgrace him. And me. And yourself..."

"Tough times don't last. Tough people do."

"You have the rest of your life to solve your problems. How long you live depends on how well you do it."

Token Reactionary S.O.B.


Sat Oct 27, 2007 7:45 pm
Profile
Chibi-Czar
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 12:47 am
Posts: 2088
Location: Yes.
Post 
On that note, I'm still rather astonished at how easy it is to get a basic drivers license.

On *that* note, cars are a hell of a lot more lethal than guns.

_________________
Bad things happen because people are stupid.


Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:14 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.