The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Texas professors sue over guns on campus before class begins Options
Chazlee
Posted: Thursday, August 04, 2016 5:14:27 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 408
Neurons: 3,954
The state of Texas is facing a very interesting situation, because the law which previously banned concealed handguns in college classrooms has change.

Now, as long as the person is at least "21 years old (18 if active military), have clean criminal records and pass classroom and gun range training," they can carry a concealed handgun,"although training requirements have been reduced in recent years. Texas recently passed 1 million handgun license holders.The law does not allow open carry of handguns in college buildings and all weapons must remain out of sight."

While the new law does have supporters, some professors see a possible problem when discussions in the classroom are dealing with "emotionally and politically charged topics such as gay rights and abortion." Thus, this is the basis of the lawsuit.

What makes the situation even more controversial is that "the law took effect"...on the 50th anniversary" of a "sniper attack" at the same campus were "17" people were killed " and this is generally seen as America's "first mass shooting."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/lawsuit-aims-stop-texas-campus-carry-classes-start-170341640.html?nhp=1

Although I do understand that people may feel that the answer is to arm themselves in these days of seemingly endless shootings, terrorist attacks, and even London had a situation recently in which several people were stabbed, one fatally, if I were a professor or a student at UT Austin, I would oppose this new law.

While the article states that there are "8 states" besides Texas which allow people to carry guns on campus, the potential for a terrible disaster to happen is too great to be ignored. A better possible solution is to increase the size of the campus security, but not to increase the number of armed teachers and students. Since, colleges and universities should be places where everyone, faculty and students, feel safe, I don't know how this can happen if you know your roommate, classmate, or just a random student has a gun. Also, everyone knows that many students like to drink and even take drugs while attending school. How safe can anyone feel knowing his classmate who drinks or uses drugs on a regular basis also has a gun?

Well, any opinions?

Peace.
Diogenes
Posted: Thursday, August 04, 2016 10:22:42 AM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 7/30/2014
Posts: 24
Neurons: 61,931
Sir or Madam, I wonder if you have had any contact with campus security personnel in an American university. I have and my experiences lead me to an entirely different conclusion. Texas, like most states, requires a clean criminal background, which should (in theory, at least) eliminate people who can not participate in emotionally and politically charged discussions without becoming violent or people who drink or use drugs on a regular basis. Concealed weapon permit holders are law abiding citizens. Usually impeccably law abiding.Just exactly the kind of "White-Hat-wearing" Good Guys that you would on your side if a criminal initiated multi-victim violence. Gun control laws have very little effect on those who do not obey laws, especially when one considers how greatly those laws effect the law-abiding citizen who might be the only hope YOU have when a illegally armed criminal aims his illegally acquired weapon at YOUR vital organs. Gun control laws only have a disarming impact on people who obey laws,however they certainly give a big advantage to those who choose not to obey laws. Guns are not at all evil. Guns absolutely require the hands of an evil person before they are able to serve Evil.
Lotje1000
Posted: Thursday, August 04, 2016 10:34:20 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 889
Neurons: 384,309
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
Diogenes wrote:
Guns absolutely require the hands of an evil person before they are able to serve Evil.


Like the little girl who shot her mother in the car? Like the pre-teen who shot her shooting instructor with an uzi? Like the man who shot his son at a shooting range? Like the kid who shot his neighbour for not returning a toy?

I think we need to look a bit beyond Evil and more at human failings.
Absinthius
Posted: Thursday, August 04, 2016 10:41:23 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/23/2015
Posts: 339
Neurons: 20,177
Location: Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands
Diogenes wrote:
Gun control laws only have a disarming impact on people who obey laws,however they certainly give a big advantage to those who choose not to obey laws.


This is utter nonsense. This would suggest that only criminals are ever involved in shootings, which is clearly not the case. Also, this experiment has been performed several times over, Australia for example has had a tremendous decline in gun-related violence after banning guns. This is Obvious to anyone except a certain subset of US citizens.

You are more likely to use a gun if you have easy access to one. A point that seems to me to be so obvious that it shouldn't have to be said. I did it anyway.

Look, how about this? Let's pretend we've had the row and I've won. See? It saves a lot of effort.
towan52
Posted: Thursday, August 04, 2016 11:01:53 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/28/2012
Posts: 1,675
Neurons: 158,962
Location: Midland, Texas, United States
I work on a state university campus in Texas and confess I am nervous about guns being brought to school. Theoretically anyone carrying a gun on campus needs a permit, has to have attended a state government recognised course and be aged 21 or over. In reality anyone could bring a weapon to the campus (as they could have before August 1st). Unless every entrance is manned by campus police utilising metal detectors or x-ray scanners so that anyone "carrying" has to show that they are qualified, people carrying weapons are not going to be challenged. Prior to August 1st, the mere sight of weapon would activate an alarm - now, it's supposed to be okay!

A couple of days ago the alarms went off here and recorded messages asked all staff to vacate the premises. It was a false alarm, but I, like many others and after verifying there was no fire etc. close by, secured our offices and stayed put. Out in the courtyards any disaffected student (or faculty member) could easily have wrought carnage with an automatic weapon. As I have said many times before, the writers of the 2nd amendment did not (and could not) know what 21st century weapons would be capable of. Americans (generally) love their guns and no reasoned argument is going to stop them from having them.



"Today I was a hero. I rescued some beer that was trapped in a bottle"
NKM
Posted: Thursday, August 04, 2016 11:53:23 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/14/2015
Posts: 4,116
Neurons: 186,106
Location: Corinth, New York, United States
I don't own any firearms, nor do I want to. On the other hand, I don't want every passing ne'er-do-well to feel secure in the knowledge that everyone in my household is unarmed. Like many Americans, I support the constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to "keep and bear arms", but at the same time I recognize that far too often those weapons are used with tragic results, either by accident or merely by lapse of good judgment.

With every right comes a responsibility, and it's hard to draw the lines by means of legislation — especially when considering that criminals, by definition, cannot be expected to obey the law.

redgriffin
Posted: Thursday, August 04, 2016 12:36:15 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/3/2010
Posts: 656
Neurons: 92,166
Location: Portland, Oregon, United States
Dear Mr. or MS Diogenes

Open Carry laws do not seem to make us as a people any safer in fact these laws make allot of people feel unsafe and that they are living in a society with no laws. If that is the society that you are aiming for congratulations you're close to doing that but if we are to make a civil society we as a nation must be able to find a compromise the US Circuit Courts have said not 2 mons. Still I should point out that our society is not safer these days we are more under threat and we have no real evidence that a shooter is deterred but the thought that other people may have a gun when they commit a mass shooting because the shooter knows the from watching others that the odds are in their favor as unless you train to the exacting standards that our military train to a person will tend to freeze when the time comes to fire at a live target. As the Second Amendment says in it's first line; " A well ordered Militia being necessary for the Preservation of Liberty....." you as the gun owner are faced with the control your gun ownership. You must be trained in the use of the gun and in gun safety, you must requalify annually and you must prove that you have no marks on your public record that take away your right to own a hand gun ; those to be laid down by your state and local government but they must meet military guidelines. Those are the ways to feel safer.

Thank you

Redgriffin
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, August 04, 2016 1:38:20 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 8,208
Neurons: 43,875
Chazlee wrote:
The state of Texas is facing a very interesting situation, because the law which previously banned concealed handguns in college classrooms has change.

Now, as long as the person is at least "21 years old (18 if active military), have clean criminal records and pass classroom and gun range training," they can carry a concealed handgun,"although training requirements have been reduced in recent years. Texas recently passed 1 million handgun license holders.The law does not allow open carry of handguns in college buildings and all weapons must remain out of sight."

While the new law does have supporters, some professors see a possible problem when discussions in the classroom are dealing with "emotionally and politically charged topics such as gay rights and abortion." Thus, this is the basis of the lawsuit.
I find it ironic that it was fear that created the Second Amendment, and today it is fear that forms the desire to restrict it -- the fear of "what if", we have an "emotionally and politically charged" argument.

We have always had emotionally charged topics of debate in our society, from its early founding all the way through the days of the Wild West, but it rarely resulted in shooting people simply for disagreeing. Killings over political disagreements occur from mentally unbalanced individuals, and no law is going to stop them from doing so if they are determined.

What makes the situation even more controversial is that "the law took effect"...on the 50th anniversary" of a "sniper attack" at the same campus were "17" people were killed " and this is generally seen as America's "first mass shooting."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/lawsuit-aims-stop-texas-campus-carry-classes-start-170341640.html?nhp=1

The fact that this occurred on a particular date is totally irrelevant.

Although I do understand that people may feel that the answer is to arm themselves in these days of seemingly endless shootings, terrorist attacks, and even London had a situation recently in which several people were stabbed, one fatally, if I were a professor or a student at UT Austin, I would oppose this new law.

While the article states that there are "8 states" besides Texas which allow people to carry guns on campus, the potential for a terrible disaster to happen is too great to be ignored.
The potential for any number of disasters exists every single day, and is ignored by everyone, else no one would venture from their houses. It's simply a fact of life, and most people choose not to live in fear of "what if".

A better possible solution is to increase the size of the campus security, but not to increase the number of armed teachers and students. Since, colleges and universities should be places where everyone, faculty and students, feel safe, I don't know how this can happen if you know your roommate, classmate, or just a random student has a gun. Also, everyone knows that many students like to drink and even take drugs while attending school. How safe can anyone feel knowing his classmate who drinks or uses drugs on a regular basis also has a gun?
This has always been the case, so when did you begin to stop feeling safe? This law did not change anything yet. Last year, we had a meeting at the college where I work, and the head of campus security, which is our local police force, said it would be a year before such permission would take effect. That would mean it is set to happen at this time. At that same meeting, we were told that each college would be allowed to set its own policy as to whether or not licensed carry holders would be allowed to do so.

Since each college can set its own policy, I don't see the point of the lawsuit. It looks like a publicity stunt, rather than an effort to be sensible about the subject. If they object, then simply make that known to the administrators who will set the policy forbidding concealed carry and the problem is solved, is it not? Of course, this does nothing about mentally ill persons, but then no law can anyway, so students are as safe as they always were.

Well, any opinions?

Peace.


A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Chazlee
Posted: Thursday, August 04, 2016 2:42:47 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 408
Neurons: 3,954
FounDit wrote:
Chazlee wrote:
The state of Texas is facing a very interesting situation, because the law which previously banned concealed handguns in college classrooms has change.

Now, as long as the person is at least "21 years old (18 if active military), have clean criminal records and pass classroom and gun range training," they can carry a concealed handgun,"although training requirements have been reduced in recent years. Texas recently passed 1 million handgun license holders.The law does not allow open carry of handguns in college buildings and all weapons must remain out of sight."

While the new law does have supporters, some professors see a possible problem when discussions in the classroom are dealing with "emotionally and politically charged topics such as gay rights and abortion." Thus, this is the basis of the lawsuit.
I find it ironic that it was fear that created the Second Amendment, and today it is fear that forms the desire to restrict it -- the fear of "what if", we have an "emotionally and politically charged" argument.

We have always had emotionally charged topics of debate in our society, from its early founding all the way through the days of the Wild West, but it rarely resulted in shooting people simply for disagreeing. Killings over political disagreements occur from mentally unbalanced individuals, and no law is going to stop them from doing so if they are determined.


FounDit (My Comments are in green)

I am somewhat familiar with irony. So, why is that ironic?

As for your comment that "We have always had emotionally charged topics of debate in our society, from its early founding all the way through the days of the Wild West, but it rarely resulted in shooting people simply for disagreeing." With all due respect, do you watch the news or read any news at all? We are living in different times. Today many people are carrying guns, and, in the past an "emotionally charge" debate topic may not have ended in a killing. Today, people are killing each other over a perceived "diss" that they read someone said about them on Facebook.

What makes the situation even more controversial is that "the law took effect"...on the 50th anniversary" of a "sniper attack" at the same campus were "17" people were killed " and this is generally seen as America's "first mass shooting."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/lawsuit-aims-stop-texas-campus-carry-classes-start-170341640.html?nhp=1

The fact that this occurred on a particular date is totally irrelevant.


You must be kidding here. How could the date be irrelevant? It is clear that the Texas lawmakers chose this date, a date in which many people died on a university campus, to make a statement that now the people of Texas will be safe. If it is irrelevant, then please enlighten me as to why this particular date was chosen.


Although I do understand that people may feel that the answer is to arm themselves in these days of seemingly endless shootings, terrorist attacks, and even London had a situation recently in which several people were stabbed, one fatally, if I were a professor or a student at UT Austin, I would oppose this new law.

While the article states that there are "8 states" besides Texas which allow people to carry guns on campus, the potential for a terrible disaster to happen is too great to be ignored.

The potential for any number of disasters exists every single day, and is ignored by everyone, else no one would venture from their houses. It's simply a fact of life, and most people choose not to live in fear of "what if".


With all due respect, are you actually reading what you are writing before you post it on this forum? Of course, people can't simply stay in their houses "afraid" to venture outdoors. That still does not address the issue of whether it is a good idea to allow people to carry concealed handguns on a college/university campus. Yes, we can be hit by a car while crossing the street, and we can be in an airplane crash. We can die during routine medical surgery. There are many ways to die, but you ignore the fact that people, many people in the USA, die needlessly from guns of all types each day and year. The fact that most of us choose not to hide in our homes and not go outside, does not mean we are not afraid. It simply means we have no other options available to us.

A better possible solution is to increase the size of the campus security, but not to increase the number of armed teachers and students. Since, colleges and universities should be places where everyone, faculty and students, feel safe, I don't know how this can happen if you know your roommate, classmate, or just a random student has a gun. Also, everyone knows that many students like to drink and even take drugs while attending school. How safe can anyone feel knowing his classmate who drinks or uses drugs on a regular basis also has a gun?

This has always been the case, so when did you begin to stop feeling safe? This law did not change anything yet. Last year, we had a meeting at the college where I work, and the head of campus security, which is our local police force, said it would be a year before such permission would take effect. That would mean it is set to happen at this time. At that same meeting, we were told that each college would be allowed to set its own policy as to whether or not licensed carry holders would be allowed to do so.

With all due respect, you are definitely wrong about this. This new law changes everything. If a student in the past felt unsafe with a classmate, roommate, or a random person on campus having a gun, then he/she could seek a remedy. Now, however, that same student would likely be told that the law allows the person to have a gun, so deal with it. Even though the people at your school may be carrying guns already is not the same thing as them being legally allowed to do so. Yes, people break the law everyday. They deal drugs, and they rob and kill others, and they carry guns. However, that is not the same as being legally allowed to do so. If the head of your campus security force said it would be a year for the law to take affect and, this means you and your colleagues can now decide, amongst yourselves if it is ok for the people on your campus to carry guns, then he is not a very good law enforcement officer, and I hope none of your colleagues told others to follow his advice.

Since each college can set its own policy, I don't see the point of the lawsuit. It looks like a publicity stunt, rather than an effort to be sensible about the subject. If they object, then simply make that known to the administrators who will set the policy forbidding concealed carry and the problem is solved, is it not? Of course, this does nothing about mentally ill persons, but then no law can anyway, so students are as safe as they always were.


How about you believing that instead of their feelings being a "publicity stunt," the lawsuit is actually professors speaking out who are scared about what may happen to them when they come to work each week? Instead of looking to blame these educators, how about we try to put ourselves in their place? They are not police officers, nor are they soldiers. There job does not and should not require them to come to work prepared to do physical battle. When they decided to become educators, I bet none of them thought "How should I best prepare myself in case the enemy attacks me?" I am not sure if you are an educator, but if you are, then I certainly do wonder when you started to see the classroom as a battlefield, in which all those present, teachers and students, need to be armed to protect themselves? However, I believe you are wrong.

Peace.
towan52
Posted: Thursday, August 04, 2016 3:23:18 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/28/2012
Posts: 1,675
Neurons: 158,962
Location: Midland, Texas, United States
Draw your own guns... oops I mean conclusions! d'oh!

Mass shootings: There were 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people and wounding 1,870, according to the Mass Shooting Tracker, which catalogues such incidents. A mass shooting is defined as a single shooting incident which kills or injures four or more people, including the assailant.
School shootings: There were 64 school shootings in 2015, according to a dedicated campaign group set up in the wake of the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre in Connecticut in 2012. Those figures include occasions when a gun was fired but no-one was hurt.
All shootings: Some 13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms in 2015, according to the Gun Violence Archive, and 26,819 people were injured [those figures exclude suicide]. Those figures are likely to rise by several hundred, once incidents in the final week of the year are counted.
How the US compares: The number of gun murders per capita in the US in 2012 - the most recent year for comparable statistics - was nearly 30 times that in the UK, at 2.9 per 100,000 compared with just 0.1. Of all the murders in the US in 2012, 60% were by firearm compared with 31% in Canada, 18.2% in Australia, and just 10% in the UK.

Source:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604

"Today I was a hero. I rescued some beer that was trapped in a bottle"
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, August 04, 2016 4:49:14 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 8,208
Neurons: 43,875
Chazlee wrote:

I am somewhat familiar with irony. So, why is that ironic?

From TFD:

Irony
2.
a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs

So an amendment that gives citizens the right and ability to provide for their own safety, and protect themselves is now seen as a threat to that safety. I call this irony: what was expected is not what is now occurring.

As for your comment that "We have always had emotionally charged topics of debate in our society, from its early founding all the way through the days of the Wild West, but it rarely resulted in shooting people simply for disagreeing." With all due respect, do you watch the news or read any news at all? We are living in different times. Today many people are carrying guns, and, in the past an "emotionally charge" debate topic may not have ended in a killing. Today, people are killing each other over a perceived "diss" that they read someone said about them on Facebook.
We are living in different times. In those days of the past I mentioned, EVERYONE had access to guns, yet as you yourself agree, not many political disagreements ended in killing. Law abiding people don’t do that, it is the criminals that kill for a “diss”. It is they you should fear, not those who have been vetted and trained, who know how to behave.

Chazlee wrote:

You must be kidding here. How could the date be irrelevant? It is clear that the Texas lawmakers chose this date, a date in which many people died on a university campus, to make a statement that now the people of Texas will be safe. If it is irrelevant, then please enlighten me as to why this particular date was chosen.

No, I’m not kidding. How is it clear that Texas lawmakers chose this date? There is nothing in the article you cited that evidenced that. On any date of the calendar, something could be found to be significant, so unless you have some evidence this date was chosen specifically, I maintain that it is irrelevant. The date is simply coincidental. If you have such evidence, please provide it, and I will acquiesce to the validity of your comment.

Chazlee wrote:

With all due respect, are you actually reading what you are writing before you post it on this forum? Of course, people can't simply stay in their houses "afraid" to venture outdoors. That still does not address the issue of whether it is a good idea to allow people to carry concealed handguns on a college/university campus. Yes, we can be hit by a car while crossing the street, and we can be in an airplane crash. We can die during routine medical surgery. There are many ways to die, but you ignore the fact that people, many people in the USA, die needlessly from guns of all types each day and year. The fact that most of us choose not to hide in our homes and not go outside, does not mean we are not afraid. It simply means we have no other options available to us.

As a matter of fact, I usually proofread my posts several times before posting them. Often I wait overnight before posting. It was you who said, “…the potential for a terrible disaster to happen is too great to be ignored.”

My point was that this is daily life. Terrible disasters happen every day, and we ignore them. Well, perhaps you don’t, but most of us do, and that is true. But you are correct in one respect; we don’t have other options available to us. Guns and danger cannot be eliminated, but criminals will always have guns, and people will always be at some risk, no matter what is done.

You make the mistake of thinking that the existence and availability of guns creates the danger. But if this were true, then every military in the world would be experiencing the killing of their soldiers at an unbelievable rate, since every soldier is issued a weapon. But that doesn’t happen, does it? The reason it doesn’t is because the vast majority of people, even when they have guns, behave responsibly. And just as with police, soldiers and reasonable people use them responsibly.

And since here in the US, there are millions of people with millions of guns already, there is no reason to believe there will be the potential for a terrible disaster, simply because they are permitted to carry them – many already are, and the disasters are not happening. This is not to say some mentally ill person won’t do so, but they might also be stopped, or the damage mitigated by fellow citizens with guns. There is no way to know for certain in either case.


I wrote:
“This law did not change anything yet. Last year, we had a meeting at the college where I work, and the head of campus security, which is our local police force, said it would be a year before such permission would take effect. That would mean it is set to happen at this time. At that same meeting, we were told that each college would be allowed to set its own policy as to whether or not licensed carry holders would be allowed to do so. “



Chazlee wrote:

With all due respect, you are definitely wrong about this. This new law changes everything. If a student in the past felt unsafe with a classmate, roommate, or a random person on campus having a gun, then he/she could seek a remedy. Now, however, that same student would likely be told that the law allows the person to have a gun, so deal with it. Even though the people at your school may be carrying guns already is not the same thing as them being legally allowed to do so. Yes, people break the law everyday. They deal drugs, and they rob and kill others, and they carry guns. However, that is not the same as being legally allowed to do so. If the head of your campus security force said it would be a year for the law to take affect and, this means you and your colleagues can now decide, amongst yourselves if it is ok for the people on your campus to carry guns, then he is not a very good law enforcement officer, and I hope none of your colleagues told others to follow his advice.

You misunderstood what I wrote. I said that last year, when the law was passed, no change had yet occurred; colleges, not me or my colleagues, but the college administration, would have a year to decide their policy. This, according to the police officer who instructed us on the new law, would be decided in 2016, this year, prior to the Fall Semester. I’ve no doubt that on our first day back this year, we will be told what the policy of our campus will be. I fully expect concealed carry to be prohibited.

Chazlee wrote:


There (sic) [the educator’s] job does not and should not require them to come to work prepared to do physical battle. When they decided to become educators, I bet none of them thought "How should I best prepare myself in case the enemy attacks me?" I am not sure if you are an educator, but if you are, then I certainly do wonder when you started to see the classroom as a battlefield, in which all those present, teachers and students, need to be armed to protect themselves? However, I believe you are wrong.

You assume facts not in evidence. You assume educators must come to work with the mentality of a population under assault from an enemy. This is fallacious logic for which no proof has been provided, and an attitude you are projecting onto the whole of the nation’s educators. I do not see the college classroom as a battlefield at all. If, however, someone thought to do harm to students in a classroom, they would likely think twice about it if they know they might be facing an armed resistance. I would not like to see this happen, but I would like less, having to cower under a desk, waiting to be shot by someone, with no way to defend myself. But this is, no doubt, what will be decided is best.



A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
TL Hobs
Posted: Thursday, August 04, 2016 8:39:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/16/2009
Posts: 1,374
Neurons: 5,443
Location: Kenai, Alaska, United States

Alaska, another Republican controlled state, also passed a law allowing concealed carry of weapons on college campuses. I think it is interesting to note that while our politicians supported this law, they do not allow concealed weapons inside their own offices and the government offices and courts.

I guess it is OK to endanger the lives of our students, but it is necessary to protect the lives of our politicians.



"When you don't know where you are going, you have to stick together just in case someone gets there." - Ken Kesey
Lotje1000
Posted: Friday, August 05, 2016 2:55:32 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 889
Neurons: 384,309
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
FounDit wrote:
You make the mistake of thinking that the existence and availability of guns creates the danger. But if this were true, then every military in the world would be experiencing the killing of their soldiers at an unbelievable rate, since every soldier is issued a weapon. But that doesn’t happen, does it? The reason it doesn’t is because the vast majority of people, even when they have guns, behave responsibly. And just as with police, soldiers and reasonable people use them responsibly.


You are making the mistake of thinking that the existence and availability of guns does not create the danger. Yet it's pretty obvious that if there were no guns, people would not get killed by guns. This goes beyond criminals and includes accidental deaths and human stupidity.

Secondly, you are making the mistake of comparing the military to average civilians. By contrast to civilians (and that includes the police force) the military is trained to use the weapons they have. And they will readily admit that even with proper training, an actual scenario involving guns is nothing like what you'd expect and is still dangerous for everyone involved. The more guns there are, the more difficult it becomes to navigate the situation. And if everyone has guns, how will anyone know who exactly the criminal is?

And finally, you still seem to believe that people behave responsibly in stressful situations. I've already pointed this out in a previous thread. You seem to think that just because you are level-headed now, everyone is level-headed when they are in a stressful situation. I'm sure the dad who accidentally shot his son at a shooting range was also a well-behaved, responsible man who, at the time, was quite level-headed. That doesn't stop accidents from happening and it sure as hell doesn't stop human nature from being what it is: afraid.
FounDit
Posted: Friday, August 05, 2016 12:45:22 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 8,208
Neurons: 43,875
Lotje1000 wrote:


FounDit wrote:
You make the mistake of thinking that the existence and availability of guns creates the danger. But if this were true, then every military in the world would be experiencing the killing of their soldiers at an unbelievable rate, since every soldier is issued a weapon. But that doesn’t happen, does it? The reason it doesn’t is because the vast majority of people, even when they have guns, behave responsibly. And just as with police, soldiers and reasonable people use them responsibly.


You are making the mistake of thinking that the existence and availability of guns does not create the danger.
It does not. That logic does not work. Simply because something exists does not mean you are in danger from it. Automobiles exist, yet you are in little danger of someone attacking you with one.

Yet it's pretty obvious that if there were no guns, people would not get killed by guns. This goes beyond criminals and includes accidental deaths and human stupidity.
That logic doesn’t work either. You could say that about anything that has ever caused the death of a human. “If it didn’t exist, no one would die from it. Therefore, to save lives, it shouldn't exist.”

Secondly, you are making the mistake of comparing the military to average civilians. By contrast to civilians (and that includes the police force) the military is trained to use the weapons they have. And they will readily admit that even with proper training, an actual scenario involving guns is nothing like what you'd expect and is still dangerous for everyone involved. The more guns there are, the more difficult it becomes to navigate the situation. And if everyone has guns, how will anyone know who exactly the criminal is?
Well, the police and the military (including all of us veterans) are trained in how to handle their weapons. People (civilians) with permits are also trained in how to handle their weapons, so the comparison between the military and civilians is valid. As to knowing who the criminals are, that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not citizens have a right to protect their lives, or the life of another, with a weapon – the same weapon a criminal could use, and the answer is, Yes.

And finally, you still seem to believe that people behave responsibly in stressful situations. I've already pointed this out in a previous thread. You seem to think that just because you are level-headed now, everyone is level-headed when they are in a stressful situation. I'm sure the dad who accidentally shot his son at a shooting range was also a well-behaved, responsible man who, at the time, was quite level-headed. That doesn't stop accidents from happening and it sure as hell doesn't stop human nature from being what it is: afraid.
An illogical comparison. One anecdotal story does not apply to the whole of society. I could just as easily search out a story of someone whose life was saved by having a gun.

It is true that in a shooting situation there is a tremendous amount of stress. In both the military, and on police forces, mistakes happen. I know because I have been in that situation. But it would be even more stressful to be under attack, and have no way to defend yourself. I’ve been in that situation also. Life is full of stressful situations, and in today's world, it is possible to find oneself in a position of being the target of an assault, but having the proper training and equipment can help a person deal with it. You would remove both the training and the equipment from such a person?






A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Lotje1000
Posted: Friday, August 05, 2016 1:03:40 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 889
Neurons: 384,309
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
FounDit wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:


FounDit wrote:
You make the mistake of thinking that the existence and availability of guns creates the danger. But if this were true, then every military in the world would be experiencing the killing of their soldiers at an unbelievable rate, since every soldier is issued a weapon. But that doesn’t happen, does it? The reason it doesn’t is because the vast majority of people, even when they have guns, behave responsibly. And just as with police, soldiers and reasonable people use them responsibly.


You are making the mistake of thinking that the existence and availability of guns does not create the danger.
It does not. That logic does not work. Simply because something exists does not mean you are in danger from it. Automobiles exist, yet you are in little danger of someone attacking you with one.
Unlike guns, automobiles aren't intended as weapons.

Yet it's pretty obvious that if there were no guns, people would not get killed by guns. This goes beyond criminals and includes accidental deaths and human stupidity.
That logic doesn’t work either. You could say that about anything that has ever caused the death of a human. “If it didn’t exist, no one would die from it. Therefore, to save lives, it shouldn't exist.”
Again, guns are intended to kill efficiently.

Secondly, you are making the mistake of comparing the military to average civilians. By contrast to civilians (and that includes the police force) the military is trained to use the weapons they have. And they will readily admit that even with proper training, an actual scenario involving guns is nothing like what you'd expect and is still dangerous for everyone involved. The more guns there are, the more difficult it becomes to navigate the situation. And if everyone has guns, how will anyone know who exactly the criminal is?
Well, the police and the military (including all of us veterans) are trained in how to handle their weapons. People (civilians) with permits are also trained in how to handle their weapons, so the comparison between the military and civilians is valid. As to knowing who the criminals are, that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not citizens have a right to protect their lives, or the life of another, with a weapon – the same weapon a criminal could use, and the answer is, Yes.
Civilians do not have the same training as the military. Otherwise they wouldn't be civilians. Then you wouldn't need a military or a police force.

And finally, you still seem to believe that people behave responsibly in stressful situations. I've already pointed this out in a previous thread. You seem to think that just because you are level-headed now, everyone is level-headed when they are in a stressful situation. I'm sure the dad who accidentally shot his son at a shooting range was also a well-behaved, responsible man who, at the time, was quite level-headed. That doesn't stop accidents from happening and it sure as hell doesn't stop human nature from being what it is: afraid.
An illogical comparison. One anecdotal story does not apply to the whole of society. I could just as easily search out a story of someone whose life was saved by having a gun.

It is true that in a shooting situation there is a tremendous amount of stress. In both the military, and on police forces, mistakes happen. I know because I have been in that situation. But it would be even more stressful to be under attack, and have no way to defend yourself. I’ve been in that situation also. Life is full of stressful situations, and in today's world, it is possible to find oneself in a position of being the target of an assault, but having the proper training and equipment can help a person deal with it. You would remove both the training and the equipment from such a person?


If people have guns, I would demand they have training.

FounDit
Posted: Friday, August 05, 2016 4:12:18 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 8,208
Neurons: 43,875
Lotje1000 wrote:
FounDit wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:


FounDit wrote:
You make the mistake of thinking that the existence and availability of guns creates the danger. But if this were true, then every military in the world would be experiencing the killing of their soldiers at an unbelievable rate, since every soldier is issued a weapon. But that doesn’t happen, does it? The reason it doesn’t is because the vast majority of people, even when they have guns, behave responsibly. And just as with police, soldiers and reasonable people use them responsibly.


You are making the mistake of thinking that the existence and availability of guns does not create the danger.
It does not. That logic does not work. Simply because something exists does not mean you are in danger from it. Automobiles exist, yet you are in little danger of someone attacking you with one.
Unlike guns, automobiles aren't intended as weapons.
But that doesn't mean they can't be used as such. Remember Paris? Besides that, knives, bombs, poisons, and swords are intended as weapons, but you are not very likely to be attacked with those either. Their existence doesn't automatically put you in danger.

Yet it's pretty obvious that if there were no guns, people would not get killed by guns. This goes beyond criminals and includes accidental deaths and human stupidity.
That logic doesn’t work either. You could say that about anything that has ever caused the death of a human. “If it didn’t exist, no one would die from it. Therefore, to save lives, it shouldn't exist.”
Again, guns are intended to kill efficiently.
See the answer above. Besides that, efficiency isn't the issue. Would you withhold objection if the manner of death was inefficient? Of course you wouldn't.

Secondly, you are making the mistake of comparing the military to average civilians. By contrast to civilians (and that includes the police force) the military is trained to use the weapons they have. And they will readily admit that even with proper training, an actual scenario involving guns is nothing like what you'd expect and is still dangerous for everyone involved. The more guns there are, the more difficult it becomes to navigate the situation. And if everyone has guns, how will anyone know who exactly the criminal is?
Well, the police and the military (including all of us veterans) are trained in how to handle their weapons. People (civilians) with permits are also trained in how to handle their weapons, so the comparison between the military and civilians is valid. As to knowing who the criminals are, that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not citizens have a right to protect their lives, or the life of another, with a weapon – the same weapon a criminal could use, and the answer is, Yes.
Civilians do not have the same training as the military. Otherwise they wouldn't be civilians. Then you wouldn't need a military or a police force.
I didn't say civilians had the same training as the military. I said both the military and civilians with permits had been trained. Civilians are trained by the police.

And finally, you still seem to believe that people behave responsibly in stressful situations. I've already pointed this out in a previous thread. You seem to think that just because you are level-headed now, everyone is level-headed when they are in a stressful situation. I'm sure the dad who accidentally shot his son at a shooting range was also a well-behaved, responsible man who, at the time, was quite level-headed. That doesn't stop accidents from happening and it sure as hell doesn't stop human nature from being what it is: afraid.
An illogical comparison. One anecdotal story does not apply to the whole of society. I could just as easily search out a story of someone whose life was saved by having a gun.

It is true that in a shooting situation there is a tremendous amount of stress. In both the military, and on police forces, mistakes happen. I know because I have been in that situation. But it would be even more stressful to be under attack, and have no way to defend yourself. I’ve been in that situation also. Life is full of stressful situations, and in today's world, it is possible to find oneself in a position of being the target of an assault, but having the proper training and equipment can help a person deal with it. You would remove both the training and the equipment from such a person?


If people have guns, I would demand they have training.
I have had training, so if you were in my presence and I had a gun, you would have no objection or fear, correct?


Edit: BTW, on the topic of danger in the presence of guns, this link has some interesting facts:
Concealed Carry Permit Holders

Two items stand out to me:
1. During President Obama’s administration, the number of concealed handgun permits has soared to over 14.5 million – a 215% increase since 2007.

2. ■ Between 2007 and 2015, murder rates fell from 5.6 to 4.7 (preliminary estimate) per 100,000. This represents a 16% drop. Overall violent crime fell by 18 percent. Meanwhile, the percentage of adults with permits has soared by 190%.

So even though more people have permits to carry guns, the crime rate has fallen. It would seem that being in the presence of guns actually makes one safer.


A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Chazlee
Posted: Friday, August 05, 2016 5:01:14 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 408
Neurons: 3,954
FounDit wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
FounDit wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:


FounDit wrote:
You make the mistake of thinking that the existence and availability of guns creates the danger. But if this were true, then every military in the world would be experiencing the killing of their soldiers at an unbelievable rate, since every soldier is issued a weapon. But that doesn’t happen, does it? The reason it doesn’t is because the vast majority of people, even when they have guns, behave responsibly. And just as with police, soldiers and reasonable people use them responsibly.


You are making the mistake of thinking that the existence and availability of guns does not create the danger.
It does not. That logic does not work. Simply because something exists does not mean you are in danger from it. Automobiles exist, yet you are in little danger of someone attacking you with one.
Unlike guns, automobiles aren't intended as weapons.
But that doesn't mean they can't be used as such. Remember Paris? Besides that, knives, bombs, poisons, and swords are intended as weapons, but you are not very likely to be attacked with those either. Their existence doesn't automatically put you in danger.

Yet it's pretty obvious that if there were no guns, people would not get killed by guns. This goes beyond criminals and includes accidental deaths and human stupidity.
That logic doesn’t work either. You could say that about anything that has ever caused the death of a human. “If it didn’t exist, no one would die from it. Therefore, to save lives, it shouldn't exist.”
Again, guns are intended to kill efficiently.
See the answer above. Besides that, efficiency isn't the issue. Would you withhold objection if the manner of death was inefficient? Of course you wouldn't.

Secondly, you are making the mistake of comparing the military to average civilians. By contrast to civilians (and that includes the police force) the military is trained to use the weapons they have. And they will readily admit that even with proper training, an actual scenario involving guns is nothing like what you'd expect and is still dangerous for everyone involved. The more guns there are, the more difficult it becomes to navigate the situation. And if everyone has guns, how will anyone know who exactly the criminal is?
Well, the police and the military (including all of us veterans) are trained in how to handle their weapons. People (civilians) with permits are also trained in how to handle their weapons, so the comparison between the military and civilians is valid. As to knowing who the criminals are, that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not citizens have a right to protect their lives, or the life of another, with a weapon – the same weapon a criminal could use, and the answer is, Yes.
Civilians do not have the same training as the military. Otherwise they wouldn't be civilians. Then you wouldn't need a military or a police force.
I didn't say civilians had the same training as the military. I said both the military and civilians with permits had been trained. Civilians are trained by the police.

And finally, you still seem to believe that people behave responsibly in stressful situations. I've already pointed this out in a previous thread. You seem to think that just because you are level-headed now, everyone is level-headed when they are in a stressful situation. I'm sure the dad who accidentally shot his son at a shooting range was also a well-behaved, responsible man who, at the time, was quite level-headed. That doesn't stop accidents from happening and it sure as hell doesn't stop human nature from being what it is: afraid.
An illogical comparison. One anecdotal story does not apply to the whole of society. I could just as easily search out a story of someone whose life was saved by having a gun.

It is true that in a shooting situation there is a tremendous amount of stress. In both the military, and on police forces, mistakes happen. I know because I have been in that situation. But it would be even more stressful to be under attack, and have no way to defend yourself. I’ve been in that situation also. Life is full of stressful situations, and in today's world, it is possible to find oneself in a position of being the target of an assault, but having the proper training and equipment can help a person deal with it. You would remove both the training and the equipment from such a person?


If people have guns, I would demand they have training.
I have had training, so if you were in my presence and I had a gun, you would have no objection or fear, correct?




FounDit,

Are you aware that the countless hours people spend debating the gun issue in America is not the norm in most other countries? In most countries around the globe there is no need for a debate about whether people should or should not be allowed to own guns because they are not legally given the right to do so. In those countries where gun ownership is the norm, they do not have the huge number of gun deaths per year that the USA does.

There are countries in this world where police officers are not allowed to take their guns with them when they go home at the end of the day. When their shift is over, they turn in their guns, and pick them up again when their next shift begins. In America, we would think this is unimaginable, but those countries think what we do is insane.

Why are you so unwilling to admit that each year people die needlessly in the USA from guns? If you really believe that America is a better place because we have so many guns available for the general public, then explain why we seem to so readily use those guns to kill innocent people. Unlike motor vehicles which do indeed kill people, cars and trucks are not inherently dangerous. Yet guns are, and that is why there are so many gun deaths in the USA. If you put your car keys on a table, and a child picks them up, that child is not likely to pick up the keys, wander outside, get in your car and cause a tragedy. It could happen, but it is far from a sure bet that something bad will happen. However, put a gun on a table with a child around and I think you know what the outcome is likely to be.

The truth is that the only people who need or should need to own and possess guns are active military and law enforcement officers. Allowing average people to walk around carrying guns is asking for trouble, and the amount of gun deaths in the USA proves this to be true. We have people on death row in the USA, and most of them have used a gun to get themselves put on death row.

America in 2016 is not the wild west. We may want, but we don't need, guns in the hands of everyday people. People are using guns not to protect themselves from outside invading forces but from our fellow citizens, which is beyond sad. Our cities are not safer because there are more guns in more people's hands. Our cities are not safer just because someone gets some gun training and does not have a record of criminal behavior or mental illness. Guns make us unsafe. Guns put our law enforcement officers at risk. Guns put our good citizens at risk everyday. Guns kill great musicians in America (John Lennon). Guns kill children, adults, and yes, they kill criminals also.

Whether you want to admit it or not, guns in the hands of people other than law enforcement officers or the military has cost America a lot.



FounDit
Posted: Friday, August 05, 2016 5:26:43 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 8,208
Neurons: 43,875
Chazlee wrote:


FounDit,

Are you aware that the countless hours people spend debating the gun issue in America is not the norm in most other countries? In most countries around the globe there is no need for a debate about whether people should or should not be allowed to own guns because they are not legally given the right to do so. In those countries where gun ownership is the norm, they do not have the huge number of gun deaths per year that the USA does.
Well, it was you who posted the topic. If you didn't want to discuss it, why did you go to the trouble of posting on it?

There are countries in this world where police officers are not allowed to take their guns with them when they go home at the end of the day. When their shift is over, they turn in their guns, and pick them up again when their next shift begins. In America, we would think this is unimaginable, but those countries think what we do is insane.
And I should care -- because? I don't live my life in fear of what someone in another country thinks of me or my country. It seems to me folks in other countries have enough to worry about themselves without preaching at us on how we should live here.

Why are you so unwilling to admit that each year people die needlessly in the USA from guns?
I don't. I simply find it a foolish argument to restrict or ban something that saves lives as easily as it can save them. Everything has a positive and negative side to it.

If you really believe that America is a better place because we have so many guns available for the general public, then explain why we seem to so readily use those guns to kill innocent people.
Because as I just said, people's lives are saved by them as well. It is only the criminals that kill innocent people, and that cannot be stopped with rules and laws, but they can be stopped with guns.

Unlike motor vehicles which do indeed kill people, cars and trucks are not inherently dangerous. Yet guns are, and that is why there are so many gun deaths in the USA. If you put your car keys on a table, and a child picks them up, that child is not likely to pick up the keys, wander outside, get in your car and cause a tragedy. It could happen, but it is far from a sure bet that something bad will happen. However, put a gun on a table with a child around and I think you know what the outcome is likely to be.
Why do you permit knives to be in your kitchen drawer then? How about scissors? Electrical outlets? Bathtubs? Your concern is just too myopic to be a reasonable argument.

The truth is that the only people who need or should need to own and possess guns are active military and law enforcement officers. Allowing average people to walk around carrying guns is asking for trouble, and the amount of gun deaths in the USA proves this to be true. We have people on death row in the USA, and most of them have used a gun to get themselves put on death row.
A foolish argument since anything that can be carried around might be used as a weapon, from pocket knives, to pencils, to car keys. Do you really live in that kind of fear? I feel sorry for you if you do. Perhaps you should read my Edit above.

America in 2016 is not the wild west. We may want, but we don't need, guns in the hands of everyday people. People are using guns not to protect themselves from outside invading forces but from our fellow citizens, which is beyond sad.
But it is a fact of life.

Our cities are not safer because there are more guns in more people's hands. Our cities are not safer just because someone gets some gun training and does not have a record of criminal behavior or mental illness. Guns make us unsafe.
You say that, but the statistics prove differently.

Guns put our law enforcement officers at risk. Guns put our good citizens at risk everyday.
No, criminals who mean to do harm put our people at risk.

Guns kill great musicians in America (John Lennon). Guns kill children, adults, and yes, they kill criminals also.
No, an insane person killed John Lennon.

Whether you want to admit it or not, guns in the hands of people other than law enforcement officers or the military has cost America a lot.
I never said it didn't, but guns have also fed our people, protected our citizens, deterred and sometimes eliminated criminals, repelled armies that wanted to subjugate us, and any number of other positive things also. I'm sorry you live in such a negative world, where you can see only the downside of life. I prefer to look on the positive side of things, and having the ability to protect myself and others is a positive in my book.





A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Chazlee
Posted: Friday, August 05, 2016 6:14:19 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 408
Neurons: 3,954
FounDit wrote:
Chazlee wrote:


FounDit,

Are you aware that the countless hours people spend debating the gun issue in America is not the norm in most other countries? In most countries around the globe there is no need for a debate about whether people should or should not be allowed to own guns because they are not legally given the right to do so. In those countries where gun ownership is the norm, they do not have the huge number of gun deaths per year that the USA does.
Well, it was you who posted the topic. If you didn't want to discuss it, why did you go to the trouble of posting on it?

You have made a good point. I did start this topic.


There are countries in this world where police officers are not allowed to take their guns with them when they go home at the end of the day. When their shift is over, they turn in their guns, and pick them up again when their next shift begins. In America, we would think this is unimaginable, but those countries think what we do is insane.
And I should care -- because? I don't live my life in fear of what someone in another country thinks of me or my country. It seems to me folks in other countries have enough to worry about themselves without preaching at us on how we should live here.

Why are you so unwilling to admit that each year people die needlessly in the USA from guns?
I don't. I simply find it a foolish argument to restrict or ban something that saves lives as easily as it can save them. Everything has a positive and negative side to it.

If you really believe that America is a better place because we have so many guns available for the general public, then explain why we seem to so readily use those guns to kill innocent people.
Because as I just said, people's lives are saved by them as well. It is only the criminals that kill innocent people, and that cannot be stopped with rules and laws, but they can be stopped with guns.

Unlike motor vehicles which do indeed kill people, cars and trucks are not inherently dangerous. Yet guns are, and that is why there are so many gun deaths in the USA. If you put your car keys on a table, and a child picks them up, that child is not likely to pick up the keys, wander outside, get in your car and cause a tragedy. It could happen, but it is far from a sure bet that something bad will happen. However, put a gun on a table with a child around and I think you know what the outcome is likely to be.
Why do you permit knives to be in your kitchen drawer then? How about scissors? Electrical outlets? Bathtubs? Your concern is just too myopic to be a reasonable argument.

The truth is that the only people who need or should need to own and possess guns are active military and law enforcement officers. Allowing average people to walk around carrying guns is asking for trouble, and the amount of gun deaths in the USA proves this to be true. We have people on death row in the USA, and most of them have used a gun to get themselves put on death row.
A foolish argument since anything that can be carried around might be used as a weapon, from pocket knives, to pencils, to car keys. Do you really live in that kind of fear? I feel sorry for you if you do. Perhaps you should read my Edit above.

America in 2016 is not the wild west. We may want, but we don't need, guns in the hands of everyday people. People are using guns not to protect themselves from outside invading forces but from our fellow citizens, which is beyond sad.
But it is a fact of life.

Our cities are not safer because there are more guns in more people's hands. Our cities are not safer just because someone gets some gun training and does not have a record of criminal behavior or mental illness. Guns make us unsafe.
You say that, but the statistics prove differently.

Guns put our law enforcement officers at risk. Guns put our good citizens at risk everyday.
No, criminals who mean to do harm put our people at risk.

Guns kill great musicians in America (John Lennon). Guns kill children, adults, and yes, they kill criminals also.
No, an insane person killed John Lennon.

Whether you want to admit it or not, guns in the hands of people other than law enforcement officers or the military has cost America a lot.
I never said it didn't, but guns have also fed our people, protected our citizens, deterred and sometimes eliminated criminals, repelled armies that wanted to subjugate us, and any number of other positive things also. I'm sorry you live in such a negative world, where you can see only the downside of life. I prefer to look on the positive side of things, and having the ability to protect myself and others is a positive in my book.



Hope123
Posted: Friday, August 05, 2016 8:58:34 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,127
Neurons: 41,209
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Hi Chazlee.
I'm with the profs as teachers know their students and the atmosphere better than anyone. Since I don't know US laws, I cannot comment on the lawsuit. But I do have a couple of comments about the discussion so far. I will tie this first comment to campuses in the next post.

There is one important statistic about the general need for a gun to protect oneself in the USA, according to the following source on the link - of the 32,405 gun incidents in the whole country of the USA to date in 2016, 1004 incidents of defensive use were reported and verified. That is 3.1%, leaving almost 97% where it was not for defence. There are other statistics listed plus a map of the whole country showing the incidence of gun violence around the USA.

There are still 32,405 gun violence incidents in 7 months, so even if the rate has fallen, there is still room for improvement. (Just a wee bit of an understatement.) Edit - as I checked to make sure the link was hot, the number of incidents just jumped before my eyes. Now 32,481, but the defensive incident # remained the same. So my percentage will have changed and unfortunately that total will keep going up daily.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org

"Gun Violence Archive (GVA) is a not for profit corporation formed in 2013 to provide free online public access to accurate information about gun-related violence in the United States. GVA will collect and check for accuracy, comprehensive information about gun-related violence in the U.S. and then post and disseminate it online."

My next post is about statistics of gun incidents in schools. Looking at the details of the incidents, it looks as if all were offensive uses and not defensive in nature, probably because legal guns were not found in schools. but there are no statistics.



World food shortage that threatens five hundred million children could be alleviated at the cost of one day's warfare.
Hope123
Posted: Friday, August 05, 2016 9:17:29 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,127
Neurons: 41,209
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Here are some more statistics Chazlee, comparing the number of days all students go to school with no incident to the number of days there has been an incident in the last 1 and a half years where there was injury or death in tertiary schools.

Quote FounDit - "I find it ironic that it was fear that created the Second Amendment, and today it is fear that forms the desire to restrict it -- the fear of "what if", we have an "emotionally and politically charged" argument."

To the above two fears, please add the fear of "what if there are criminals with a gun in a classroom?"

How many students go to class every day in the USA when no shootings took place? (I won't get into statistics from other countries where guns are controlled.) How many incidents were in tertiary schools? (11)

The US had 21 million students in higher education in 4,726 degree-granting institutions. 2012 are the latest figures so the number of students, schools, and thus days attended is probably higher.

21,000,000 students in tertiary education, times approximately 200 days per year, times 1 and a half years for 2015 and to July 7, 2016 equals number of days students are in school.

Of those 6,300,000,000 days there were 11 days (of a total of 25 for all schools) both in 2015 and as of July 7, 2016 when a school shooting caused injury or death in a university or college.

So of all the days that those millions of students go to school in 1 and 1/2 years, there
were .000000001746% days where a gun incident occurred that caused death or injury in a tertiary school.

Even one incident is too many! But guns in schools by non professionals seems to be overkill (pun intended) with the two above noted percentages. Obviously schools, and particularly the tertiary schools we are discussing, are not the places where most of the shootings in the US occur.


Also - When I googled those school shooting details for 2015 and 2016 of all secondary and tertiary schools where there was injury or death (25) I found something interesting - Most were on a bus, in residence, in parking lots, at the gym, during sporting contests, during arguments, and often after school hours. A police officer was shot while directing school buses. A faculty member was shot in a library. A principal was shot while arguing with a student. An argument over a dice game caused the wounding of three and the killing of one. A teacher tackled a student with a gun before he could turn it on others.

The rational part of a teen brain does not develop fully until age 25. If these young people, whose judgment is not completely developed, did not have a gun, a lot of those arguments would not have ended in injury causing death quite so easily. BTW - where did those 14 and 15 year-olds get a gun anyhow?

In 2016, a professor was shot by a student, there was a fight in a stairwell, a murder-suicide pact took two, one shooting was during a basketball game, another during a fire alarm where one was killed and three injured, there was a mass shooting in Oregon, and the last was the five police shot in Dallas as a protest.

In Dallas, Johnson used an AR-15 assault weapon and was carrying magazines of ammunition. The police were armed but five of them died and 11 people were injured before the police got him - with a robot. Thus the argument for limiting the sale of war weapons to civilians.

There would have been more deaths in 2016 if bystanders had had guns and had complicated what did happen in the schools. Perhaps teachers should be trained and carry, to protect themselves as well as their students. Just another job a teacher now has to do...

World food shortage that threatens five hundred million children could be alleviated at the cost of one day's warfare.
Hope123
Posted: Friday, August 05, 2016 10:18:26 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,127
Neurons: 41,209
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Quote FounDit - "...but it rarely resulted in shooting people simply for disagreeing. Killings over political disagreements occur from mentally unbalanced individuals, and no law is going to stop them from doing so if they are determined."

1. The Secret Service must have the same idea that mentally unbalanced individuals are the ones who kill over political disagreements - they refused to allow the request and petition of the delegates of the recent Republican Convention to have guns inside. Whistle Whistle Whistle

2. While at the Republican Convention, even the NRA made an inadvertent case for gun control.

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-nra-accidentally-made-a-great-case-for-gun-control-at-the-republican-convention/

World food shortage that threatens five hundred million children could be alleviated at the cost of one day's warfare.
Chazlee
Posted: Saturday, August 06, 2016 3:41:06 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 408
Neurons: 3,954
Hope123 wrote:
Hi Chazlee.
I'm with the profs as teachers know their students and the atmosphere better than anyone. Since I don't know US laws, I cannot comment on the lawsuit. But I do have a couple of comments about the discussion so far. I will tie this first comment to campuses in the next post.

There is one important statistic about the general need for a gun to protect oneself in the USA, according to the following source on the link - of the 32,405 gun incidents in the whole country of the USA to date in 2016, 1004 incidents of defensive use were reported and verified. That is 3.1%, leaving almost 97% where it was not for defence. There are other statistics listed plus a map of the whole country showing the incidence of gun violence around the USA.

There are still 32,405 gun violence incidents in 7 months, so even if the rate has fallen, there is still room for improvement. (Just a wee bit of an understatement.) Edit - as I checked to make sure the link was hot, the number of incidents just jumped before my eyes. Now 32,481, but the defensive incident # remained the same. So my percentage will have changed and unfortunately that total will keep going up daily.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org

"Gun Violence Archive (GVA) is a not for profit corporation formed in 2013 to provide free online public access to accurate information about gun-related violence in the United States. GVA will collect and check for accuracy, comprehensive information about gun-related violence in the U.S. and then post and disseminate it online."

My next post is about statistics of gun incidents in schools. Looking at the details of the incidents, it looks as if all were offensive uses and not defensive in nature, probably because legal guns were not found in schools. but there are no statistics.




Hi Hope,

Thank you for sharing that most important link. The statistics you cite reveal clearly why the argument some put forward that guns are needed and used primarily for defensive purposes are wrong. Actually, when I see the numbers you gave right in front of me, I am horrified. There are simply too many guns in the USA. These guns are not making us safer as a country, which I have said previously.

The problem is that when one hears that many average people are walking around carrying guns, or that many others have easy access to guns, those of us who are non-gun owners can begin to feel like we perhaps should also get a gun just in case something happens and we need it. So, more guns in the hands of more people creates an atmosphere of fear, even paranoia among people.

Yet, to the gun loving people all around, the statistics you cite mean nothing, and as a result the bodies continue to pile up year after year after year after year.... When educators who work on a university campus which was the sight of America's first mass murder, UT Austin, say they feel afraid and file a lawsuit, people callously call their lawsuit nothing more than a "publicity stunt." Why would anyone feel afraid of having average people walking around carrying guns? The solution is very easy to feel safe. Just go and get your own gun and carry it with you whenever you walk out the door. And if a person wants to feel really safe, he or she can even carry it while walking around their own home. (After all, someone could break in, and there may be no time to get to the gun).

This is madness.

Peace to you.
Lotje1000
Posted: Saturday, August 06, 2016 4:55:59 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 889
Neurons: 384,309
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
FounDit wrote:
But that doesn't mean [automobiles] can't be used as such. Remember Paris? Besides that, knives, bombs, poisons, and swords are intended as weapons, but you are not very likely to be attacked with those either. Their existence doesn't automatically put you in danger.
Quite simply put, people feel safer using guns because it puts distance between the other and them. It also only requires the pull of a trigger. Knives, however, take close range, strength and a bit more skill. Same for swords. Poisons require a lot of knowledge beforehand. Bombs are risky because you're more likely to blow yourself up if you don't know what you're doing. As such, the easiest weapon around, and also the most accessible, is a gun. Add to that that everyone thinks they can use one just because they've watched tv for a while...

Available + efficient + easy to use

That is what sets guns apart from other (improvised) weapons. That's what makes them dangerous. That's why they need more control.


I didn't say civilians had the same training as the military. I said both the military and civilians with permits had been trained. Civilians are trained by the police.
Exactly. The military has expert training and they still say that it's difficult to navigate hostile situations. Imagine police and civilians with far less training but far more likely to end up in a hostile situation, given the amount of guns about and all the reasons Hope and Chazlee have cited after my earlier post.

If you're in the military and you're on mission, you're aware it's a hostile situation and you are (in the manner of what's possible) prepared for it. If shots are fired, you have a team to back you up and tell you where the enemy is shooting from.

If you're a civilian, you're just living your life. You're, by nature, unprepared for hostile situations and don't expect them to happen. You also don't have the military training to respond to them (a bit of time in the shooting range isn't going to cut it). Suddenly shots are fired, you struggle to find your gun and then struggle to find whoever started the shooting. Your brain has no time to think "is this a terrorist? Or is this just someone's gun going off accidentally".

If you're a police officer and you're called out to a hostile situation where shots have been fired, you come in and find 50% of people holding guns pointed on each other. Everyone is nervous and trigger happy, no one is quite sure who shot first and why.

I would not like to be in the shoes of the police officer there.


I have had training, so if you were in my presence and I had a gun, you would have no objection or fear, correct?
Honestly? I'd be piss-scared. Especially because it's you as you don't seem to understand the dangers associated with allowing guns for everyone. With others I know in my life who have had military training? I'd be piss-scared too, but I trust their judgment. They are far less eager and they're willing to face the facts that you don't know how people are going to act under fire.

FounDit
Posted: Sunday, August 07, 2016 12:54:41 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 8,208
Neurons: 43,875
For Chazlee, Hope123,
and Lojte1000,

I read all the posts you all put up yesterday, but didn’t have time to respond to them. But then, when I thought of all the time and effort it would take to go through them, pointing out the differences of opinion, and what I see as illogical, laughable, conclusions drawn in much of them, I realized it would be a waste of time and energy.

In past discussions on this topic, I have sensed an ever-present attitude that seemed to lie just below the surface, and I never really put a name to it. I simply tried to objectively put forth the reasons for my attitude and position on the topic. However, Lotje finally put a name to what I was sensing, and brought into focus, what appears to me to be the real sticking point for disagreement, when she said that in the presence of a gun she would be “piss-scared”, even with her own family members. I found that to be an astounding statement, but it seems to accurately describe the difference between our two attitudes on the gun subject. I sense the same reaction, or attitude, from all three of you, and it is that fear that makes a discussion a waste of time.

I can’t imagine living in that kind of fear, that kind of debilitating weakness brought on by the mere presence of a gun, so much so one could lose bladder control. I realize that is hyperbole, but it reveals a kind of thinking that is alien to me. Most all the people I know are possessed of a sense of confidence, a strength of will, and the courage to face unpleasant situations, without experiencing the kind of fear that one might describe as “piss-scared”, in the mere presence of a gun. A huge number of Americans are extremely grateful for the right and opportunity to protect our lives, our families, and our property with a gun, if necessary.

To think that in just a few generations, the caliber of persons who, armed with guns, would venture forth over an unknown ocean, to explore an unknown land and build one of the most prosperous countries history has ever seen, would leave behind descendants who become “piss-scared” in the presence of the very type of weapon used in that great endeavor, is staggering in its implications.

I pity the three of you. I know you don’t want it, but it’s what I feel. Knowing there are numerous people who think as you do, reinforces my belief that such people should never be put in positions of power and control over their fellow citizens.

I have tried to write this without trying to make it sound like an attack, but I’m not sure that it’s possible for folks who live in such fear. That fear would be expressed as anger, so I fully expect a wagon-load of vitriol for expressing the view I have here. You all have exhibited an extraordinary inability to divorce yourselves from that fear.



A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Chazlee
Posted: Sunday, August 07, 2016 2:56:26 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 408
Neurons: 3,954
FounDit wrote:
For Chazlee, Hope123,
and Lojte1000,

I read all the posts you all put up yesterday, but didn’t have time to respond to them. But then, when I thought of all the time and effort it would take to go through them, pointing out the differences of opinion, and what I see as illogical, laughable, conclusions drawn in much of them, I realized it would be a waste of time and energy.

In past discussions on this topic, I have sensed an ever-present attitude that seemed to lie just below the surface, and I never really put a name to it. I simply tried to objectively put forth the reasons for my attitude and position on the topic. However, Lotje finally put a name to what I was sensing, and brought into focus, what appears to me to be the real sticking point for disagreement, when she said that in the presence of a gun she would be “piss-scared”, even with her own family members. I found that to be an astounding statement, but it seems to accurately describe the difference between our two attitudes on the gun subject. I sense the same reaction, or attitude, from all three of you, and it is that fear that makes a discussion a waste of time.

I can’t imagine living in that kind of fear, that kind of debilitating weakness brought on by the mere presence of a gun, so much so one could lose bladder control. I realize that is hyperbole, but it reveals a kind of thinking that is alien to me. Most all the people I know are possessed of a sense of confidence, a strength of will, and the courage to face unpleasant situations, without experiencing the kind of fear that one might describe as “piss-scared”, in the mere presence of a gun. A huge number of Americans are extremely grateful for the right and opportunity to protect our lives, our families, and our property with a gun, if necessary.

To think that in just a few generations, the caliber of persons who, armed with guns, would venture forth over an unknown ocean, to explore an unknown land and build one of the most prosperous countries history has ever seen, would leave behind descendants who become “piss-scared” in the presence of the very type of weapon used in that great endeavor, is staggering in its implications.

I pity the three of you. I know you don’t want it, but it’s what I feel. Knowing there are numerous people who think as you do, reinforces my belief that such people should never be put in positions of power and control over their fellow citizens.

I have tried to write this without trying to make it sound like an attack, but I’m not sure that it’s possible for folks who live in such fear. That fear would be expressed as anger, so I fully expect a wagon-load of vitriol for expressing the view I have here. You all have exhibited an extraordinary inability to divorce yourselves from that fear.




FounDit,

I do find it amazing that with all the gun violence and death by guns which we Americans have had to endure over the years, and which is clearly getting worse and worse, there are still people like yourself who can't understand that people are truly afraid that they or their friends or loved ones will possibly be the next unlucky victim. Yes, the mere presence of a gun can scare people, because those same people understand that guns can, and do, end a life. The fact that you have no fear of guns does not mean that others should feel the same way.

You seem to be quite willing to blindly turn away from the horrible statistics which reveal that we Americans are using guns to injure and kill each other at a shocking rate each year. I guess you believe that if gun violence has not touched your life, then there is no problem with having so many guns in America.

The fear that some of us feel is not based on an abstract theory that guns COULD POSSIBLY be used to kill innocent Americans. The fear is based on the REALITY that too many American people are being killed or injured each year by guns. Why do you find it so hard to admit that we do NOT need so many guns in America?

You write that some of us posting "have exhibited an extraordinary inability to divorce yourselves from that fear." Please tell me how someone is suppose to divorce himself/herself from a legitimate fear about being shot or killed by a gun in America? If a person lives in Manhattan, and is worried that an alligator may come out and attack him/her, then I would agree that is a fear that is not likely to happen, and the person should "divorce" himself/herself from that fear. However, when the fear a person feels is possibly being shot or killed by a gun in America, a country where thousands of people are shot and killed each year, then why is a divorce from that fear needed? The fear is real because the potential for injury or death by a gun is real.

So, I am going to keep having a fear of guns, and keep fearing people who carry guns if they are not in the military or are not law enforcement officers, because I know what damage guns can do, and have done, to far too many innocent people in America.



FounDit
Posted: Sunday, August 07, 2016 3:51:11 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 8,208
Neurons: 43,875
Chazlee wrote:


FounDit,

I do find it amazing that with all the gun violence and death by guns which we Americans have had to endure over the years, and which is clearly getting worse and worse, there are still people like yourself who can't understand that people are truly afraid that they or their friends or loved ones will possibly be the next unlucky victim. Yes, the mere presence of a gun can scare people, because those same people understand that guns can, and do, end a life. The fact that you have no fear of guns does not mean that others should feel the same way.
You may certainly live in that fear if you so choose. But you do not have the right to insist I live the same way. All humans have a natural right to protect life, their own, or that of someone else.

You seem to be quite willing to blindly turn away from the horrible statistics which reveal that we Americans are using guns to injure and kill each other at a shocking rate each year. I guess you believe that if gun violence has not touched your life, then there is no problem with having so many guns in America.
You are correct. The number of guns in America is not a problem for me. I suppose my combat experience doesn't count in your estimation; that I must be the victim of gun violence to hold a valid opinion on the matter.

The fear that some of us feel is not based on an abstract theory that guns COULD POSSIBLY be used to kill innocent Americans. The fear is based on the REALITY that too many American people are being killed or injured each year by guns. Why do you find it so hard to admit that we do NOT need so many guns in America?
How many is too many? I'm genuinely curious as to how many guns you would permit civilians to own.

You write that some of us posting "have exhibited an extraordinary inability to divorce yourselves from that fear." Please tell me how someone is suppose to divorce himself/herself from a legitimate fear about being shot or killed by a gun in America? If a person lives in Manhattan, and is worried that an alligator may come out and attack him/her, then I would agree that is a fear that is not likely to happen, and the person should "divorce" himself/herself from that fear. However, when the fear a person feels is possibly being shot or killed by a gun in America, a country where thousands of people are shot and killed each year, then why is a divorce from that fear needed? The fear is real because the potential for injury or death by a gun is real.
And as I've said before, there are a million ways to die. Do you live in fear of all of them? The odds of your being shot or killed by a gun is much less than many of those other means. Also, you have the ability to control the kinds of people you associate with, where you travel, and the care you take in doing so.

So, I am going to keep having a fear of guns, and keep fearing people who carry guns if they are not in the military or are not law enforcement officers, because I know what damage guns can do, and have done, to far too many innocent people in America.
Well, if you choose to live in fear, then be my guest. I choose not to. It's just that simple.





A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Chazlee
Posted: Sunday, August 07, 2016 4:47:18 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 408
Neurons: 3,954
FounDit wrote:
Chazlee wrote:


FounDit,

I do find it amazing that with all the gun violence and death by guns which we Americans have had to endure over the years, and which is clearly getting worse and worse, there are still people like yourself who can't understand that people are truly afraid that they or their friends or loved ones will possibly be the next unlucky victim. Yes, the mere presence of a gun can scare people, because those same people understand that guns can, and do, end a life. The fact that you have no fear of guns does not mean that others should feel the same way.
You may certainly live in that fear if you so choose. But you do not have the right to insist I live the same way. All humans have a natural right to protect life, their own, or that of someone else.
Having a fear of guns, or being afraid of possibly being a victim of gun violence is not the same as living in fear. I am surprised you don’t know that.


You seem to be quite willing to blindly turn away from the horrible statistics which reveal that we Americans are using guns to injure and kill each other at a shocking rate each year. I guess you believe that if gun violence has not touched your life, then there is no problem with having so many guns in America.
You are correct. The number of guns in America is not a problem for me. I suppose my combat experience doesn't count in your estimation; that I must be the victim of gun violence to hold a valid opinion on the matter.
You are correct that your combat experience, which I will trust you are being honest about although you do not say what that experience was, doesn’t count in this discussion. American streets and universities should not be considered war zones.



The fear that some of us feel is not based on an abstract theory that guns COULD POSSIBLY be used to kill innocent Americans. The fear is based on the REALITY that too many American people are being killed or injured each year by guns. Why do you find it so hard to admit that we do NOT need so many guns in America?
How many is too many? I'm genuinely curious as to how many guns you would permit civilians to own.
Again, if the person is not active military or a law enforcement officer, or if the person's job does not require him/her to have a gun, then the answer is zero.




You write that some of us posting "have exhibited an extraordinary inability to divorce yourselves from that fear." Please tell me how someone is suppose to divorce himself/herself from a legitimate fear about being shot or killed by a gun in America? If a person lives in Manhattan, and is worried that an alligator may come out and attack him/her, then I would agree that is a fear that is not likely to happen, and the person should "divorce" himself/herself from that fear. However, when the fear a person feels is possibly being shot or killed by a gun in America, a country where thousands of people are shot and killed each year, then why is a divorce from that fear needed? The fear is real because the potential for injury or death by a gun is real.
And as I've said before, there are a million ways to die. Do you live in fear of all of them? The odds of your being shot or killed by a gun is much less than many of those other means. Also, you have the ability to control the kinds of people you associate with, where you travel, and the care you take in doing so.
Yes, there are many ways to die. However, that is not what we are discussing here. Please quit trying to divert the discussion we are having. You are right that I can control who I associate with, but I can’t control who is standing next to me in a public building, or sitting next to me on a train when I travel. Please tell me what care I should take to ensure that a person I don’t know who is near me is not mentally ill or angry at society and has a gun?



So, I am going to keep having a fear of guns, and keep fearing people who carry guns if they are not in the military or are not law enforcement officers, because I know what damage guns can do, and have done, to far too many innocent people in America.
Well, if you choose to live in fear, then be my guest. I choose not to. It's just that simple.
Again, fearing guns and the people who are carrying them, who are not active military or law enforcement officers, is not living in fear. It is too bad that you can’t see that simple fact.


Hope123
Posted: Sunday, August 07, 2016 5:13:26 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,127
Neurons: 41,209
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FD, sorry to disappoint you but you won't get vitriol from me. This is only an academic debate for me. You are entitled to your opinions and since it is your country where thousands are killed every year, it is also your problem.

If you and those who support no changes in gun control feel that your right to not have stricter gun controls supersedes the fact that you are country number 62 out of 72 for high numbers of gun-related deaths, being beaten out only by countries such as Swaziland and Honduras, then why should the rest of the world care? It is not my attitude but in fact I have heard, right here in Canada, sentiments such as "let them crazy 'mericuns' kill each other with guns and with their crazy drivers - keeps the world population down. Fewer of them to attack us."

1. But back to this topic which was whether or not professors should have the right to say that the bringing of guns into their workplace is considered a workplace hazard. My contention is that they should have that right as to what goes on in their own classroom.

2. And I then mentioned that the incidence of such attacks in schools does not suggest that guns by students are necessary in schools. If you consider how many universities and the number of students who go there safely every day except for one university major attack in a year and a half (the second was a protest by Black Lives Matter that happened to be on a campus) it seems out of proportion that there is a necessity to allow guns by students.

3. I also showed statistics that gun incidents in the country as a whole where it was used as defence, which is the reason you give for carrying, is only 3.1 % of all incidents.

4. I also made the point that it is only fear of someone coming into a school and shooting that makes gun proponents want to make it legal to have a gun in a classroom, when there are even laws in some states that no guns are allowed in theaters, and some restaurants in Las Vegas make their own rule of no guns in the restaurant. Even the secret service is smart enough to know when to limit guns in a large gathering.

Guns need to be respected - not feared. And where and when guns are allowed is not something to be taken for granted just because of a "right to bear arms".

Instead of just resorting to saying it is too much effort, of no use, and using a red herring of us being afraid of guns, I would still like to hear your thoughts about the four numbered points as to whether or not guns are necessary on a campus with the incidences mentioned, whether or not the desire is fear driven, and whether or not professors should be allowed to control what goes on in their own classrooms.

Those points were not laughable, illogical, or without viable conclusions drawn.

World food shortage that threatens five hundred million children could be alleviated at the cost of one day's warfare.
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, August 07, 2016 5:22:58 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,127
Neurons: 41,209
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Also, since you brought it up, I will address the fear angle from a couple of perspectives.

If you are responsible with a gun, have no mental illness problems, and are entitled to have one, why are you so afraid to have to register it or have a background check? The only ones who should be afraid of that are those who shouldn't have a gun.

You carry a gun to allay your fears so I think you have the fear problem backwards. As an elderly woman I don't need a gun to feel perfectly safe to walk the streets alone where I live, even at night. In fact, I don't even know anyone personally in my whole life who has been mugged or had a home invasion where I have lived, including the big cities of Vancouver and Toronto. Mind you, I knew to stay out of gang or drug areas. Yes, we have those too.

We have walked the streets (relied on public transportation while there several times for months) and gone "clubbing" in Cancun at night with no fear at all. At least in Mexico, a country that has a lower incidence of gun-related deaths than the USA even with their drug wars, if you stay out of drug areas, you are unlikely to be shot by accident. (You are more likely to trip over a substandard step or get run over by the crazy drivers.) Only the cops and criminals carry guns and the reason Mexico has a fairly high rate is that they shoot each other.

You on the other hand have been mugged three times, so I guess maybe you do need to carry a gun to feel safe. What kind of a violent place do you live in? It sounds as if it is still back with those courageous ancestors in the Wild West.

:::::

As for your arm-chair psychoanalysis and lumping me with others who fear guns themselves - not so. My husband did target shooting and also had an old old pistol that his father used as a volunteer at the Humane Society when they had to put down animals humanely. My husband's guns were registered and in our home. He was the one who sensibly decided when I brought our first born home from the hospital that he didn't want any guns in our house. The police were there within the hour to pick them up. The fear we had was for the safety of children, and also for the fact that a gun could be used against us if anyone did break in. When our son was sixteen we bought him a 22 target rifle, had it fitted with sights, and he went to target practice with his father till he grew tired of it. He was quite a good shot.

Our very good friend, an ex soldier, who lives five floors below us, has quite a collection of legal guns and has taken us to his gun club. He was teaching his wife to shoot when they were in Las Vegas recently. While in a gun shop there, he saw an elderly woman buying a handgun. The sales person kept showing her how to use it. She didn't get it but she finally just said, "Load it for me." He did and she put it into her purse and walked out. Another day while they were at a gun range in LV, a person fired one of those semi automatics and took out all the wires holding everything up. They said it would have been funny if it hadn't been so serious. No wonder there are accidents.

I repeat - guns need to be respected, there need to be rules, and then there would be less fear of them by Americans such as Lotje or Chazlee.

::::;

You mentioned people in power. So I will say that Obama and Hillary have never wanted to repeal your second amendment (as Scalia's interpretation is too ensconced now - this last clause is my opinion). Hillary has stated she does not wish to take away your guns or your right to bear arms as many feel the need of them to feel safe. See next post re Hillary's statements.

Many Americans seem to fear their government and need weapons in case they need to overthrow it, fear the American definition of "socialism", fear anybody who is different from them, like Parser are afraid to get in a public elevator or even walk down his street, fear criminals to the point of needing to carry a weapon, and even think it is necessary to arm students in an academic situation. All unreal from my perspective!

BTW - Maybe if you had universal healthcare to treat those mentally disturbed individuals you would have fewer mass shootings. But many (I expect you too) fought that and don't even like the partial system brought in recently.

(Canadians right now have one big fear - that you'll vote in Donald Trump.)

Edited to add after re-reading your last post - my ancestors came here from the same places and faced the same odds yours did and are just as prosperous, in fact have higher ratings on standard of life than the US in many areas in the latest comparisons. In fact we had to beat off the attacks of your ancestors to keep our own values which happen to include sane gun control laws that keep our population safer with 1/10 the number of gun-related deaths adjusted for the size of population. Therefore we do not need to live in fear.

PS - I don't need or want any responses to this last post. It is just my POV in response to your statements about my supposed attitudes towards fear and guns.

World food shortage that threatens five hundred million children could be alleviated at the cost of one day's warfare.
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, August 07, 2016 8:16:59 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,127
Neurons: 41,209
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Digression in response to a comment by FounDit -

Hillary's statement in June 2016.

"I believe weapons of war have no place on our streets. We may have our disagreements on gun safety regulations, but we should all be able to agree on a few things. If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn’t be able to just go buy a gun with no questions asked. You shouldn’t be able to exploit loopholes and evade criminal background checks by buying online or at a gun show. And yes, if you’re too dangerous to get on a plane, you are too dangerous to buy a gun in America."


World food shortage that threatens five hundred million children could be alleviated at the cost of one day's warfare.
Lotje1000
Posted: Monday, August 08, 2016 3:08:21 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 889
Neurons: 384,309
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
Hope123 wrote:
Digression in response to a comment by FounDit -

Hillary's statement in June 2016.

"I believe weapons of war have no place on our streets. We may have our disagreements on gun safety regulations, but we should all be able to agree on a few things. If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn’t be able to just go buy a gun with no questions asked. You shouldn’t be able to exploit loopholes and evade criminal background checks by buying online or at a gun show. And yes, if you’re too dangerous to get on a plane, you are too dangerous to buy a gun in America."


Exactly this. You can't rely on personal responsibility and good behaviour alone. This kind of regulation is necessary.

I personally prefer the situation as it is in Britain at the moment, but sadly that's not comparable to America - mainly because the American mentality is so vastly different. I don't see an option for Americans to get rid of their guns immediately, nor is it possible to train every single citizen to have the same kind of skills as the military has. As such, the only option for now to keep Americans safe is to at the very least regulate what is happening.

As for FounDit's comments on my alleged fear: If my loved ones needed to use guns, I would trust them. Mainly because I know they know the weapon and what it can do. I cannot trust someone who ignores the obvious dangers associated with guns.
Lotje1000
Posted: Monday, August 08, 2016 3:51:05 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 889
Neurons: 384,309
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
For anyone interested, here are some sources about what happens when the body is faced with stress. As these sources point out, in cases of stress (especially when your life is at stake), the rational brain can be switched off in favour of instinctual survival response. This leads to what is dubbed the fight, flight or freeze response. That is why you can become completely unresponsive, unable to do anything (much less pull a trigger), run away in fright or blindly start attacking everything that moves.

With training and conditioning, those responses can be overcome, preparing a person to act rationally in a dangerous situation. But this requires a lot more training than a shooting range can provide. Even military training does not guarantee how soldiers will react when under fire, though it vastly increases their chances.

If you're going to wield a weapon, it's important to be aware of what your body is capable of - even when you are no longer in full control. We don't get Hollywood's multiple takes to try a scene and your body is aware of this.

ETA - I considered moving this to a science topic instead, however, I think it is still valid from a legal standpoint as one needs to be aware of these biological facts in order to create laws and regulations that have the desired effect. Not to mention, it ties in to whether or not guns on campus are a workplace hazard, given the current state of regulations.
Lotje1000
Posted: Monday, August 08, 2016 9:42:49 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 889
Neurons: 384,309
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
I have been reading up on the guns issue and recently found this website talking about the "weapons effect". Several avenues of research apparently show that the mere presence of weapons in a situation makes people more aggressive.

This seems in line with something I have read elsewhere as well, that the presence of a gun reduces a situation to a binary one: to shoot or not to shoot. Without the gun, conflicts have to be solved differently. I'm thinking of situations in Britain where the police force is not armed with guns. When they encounter a conflict, they cannot use a gun to pacify a person, they have to talk. Should the situation grow more aggravated and someone throws a punch at a cop, the cop is more likely to let that slide given the heated circumstances.
Naturally, this wouldn't work in America due to the different mentality.

The article also notes:
Quote:
Recent research shows that people can identify guns as quickly as they can identify spiders and snakes.[4],[5],[6] These findings are very interesting because guns are modern threats and cannot be explained using evolutionary principles. Yet guns are a far more dangerous to people today than spiders or snakes. Poisonous spiders (e.g., Black Widows, Brown Recluses) kill about 6 Americans each year.[7] Poisonous snakes (e.g., rattlesnakes) kill about 5 Americans each year.[8] In comparison, guns kill about 31,000 Americans each year.[9]
FounDit
Posted: Monday, August 08, 2016 11:52:39 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 8,208
Neurons: 43,875
Hope123,

For someone who says it is “your problem”, because you don’t even live in the country, and for whom it is merely an academic exercise, you go to great lengths to take the anti-gun position. I have to wonder then why you take so great an interest in supporting that position. If it bothers you so much, you could just stay safely in Canada, could you not?

As to your four points, if you would have read my postings more carefully, you would see that the state of Texas gave colleges a full year to formulate a policy concerning the concealed carry on their campuses, so the professors DID, and continue to, have input as to what happens in their classrooms.

As for your statistics, one can find those to support any position, as you well know. I can do that as well, but it will not convince you any more than your convince me. I’ve seen charts showing the rise in gun crimes in both the U.S. and Britain after gun bans have been put in place. There is also the fact that Mexico, for example, bans guns and ammunition, yet is awash in gun violence. Guns are manufactured in practically every country around the world, so if criminals can’t buy them from one source, they’ll go to another. So clearly, bans don’t work except for law abiding people.

As for Hillary’s statement,

"I believe weapons of war have no place on our streets. We may have our disagreements on gun safety regulations, but we should all be able to agree on a few things. If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn’t be able to just go buy a gun with no questions asked. You shouldn’t be able to exploit loopholes and evade criminal background checks by buying online or at a gun show. And yes, if you’re too dangerous to get on a plane, you are too dangerous to buy a gun in America."

I agree with her. So if the FBI is NOT watching you for suspected terrorist links, you should “be able to just go buy a gun with no questions asked.” I also agree that if someone is too dangerous to get on a plane, they shouldn’t be able to buy a gun, but because they are criminals, they will always be able to do just that, because laws can’t stop that.

The simple fact of the matter is that now that guns have been invented, they cannot be UN-invented. That fact means that guns will always be available, and the only defense against them is another gun. Sometimes that will work out good, and sometimes not, but that's life. We simply have to deal with that fact. This isn't a fantasy, or Utopia, where things are always sweetness and light.

Both Chazlee and Lojte contradict themselves, but I’ll let that go because that isn’t as important as the following. I appreciate the honesty of Chazlee, when he said the number of guns he would allow is “zero”. This proves what we have said all along. The desire is not to control guns, but to prevent every person from owning one. And in that case, as sure as night follows day, only criminals will have them, and the population will be at their mercy, if they choose to show any.

Fortunately, the rest of us will not permit this to happen.




A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2017 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.