Elizabeth Barrette (ysabetwordsmith) wrote,
Elizabeth Barrette
ysabetwordsmith
  • Mood: busy

The Right to Bear Arms ... on Campus

I like the right to bear arms.  I will grudgingly agree that some places, such as bars, are places where guns probably shouldn't be.  This bill proposes allowing guns on college campuses.  I think that's a great idea.  It would make school shootings briefer, because one of the armed students or teachers might manage to take out the shooter.  And it might help discourage rape, too.
Tags: education, news, politics
Subscribe

  • Doing Things on Time

    Apparently people are bad at estimating how long things will take and then getting them done. We might want to stop calling it a disorder and just…

  • Managed Retreat

    I'm pleased to see someone else admitting that not all cities can stay where they are. This article gives several examples of how cities could adapt…

  • Conformity

    Here's an article about conformity and evil. Now, we know that most humans are contextual and that evil spreads readily. But it leaves out…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    switch
    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
    Help
  • 118 comments
fayanora

fayanora

March 17 2011, 20:45:49 UTC 10 years ago

I fail to understand how allowing guns on campus is a good idea. I mean, I read the whole paragraph of your post. I've heard that argument before. Frankly, it feels like bullshit to me. More guns = more bullets flying around = more wounded people. Especially since recent events have shown that they give gun licenses to people from the same Crackerjack box they get car licenses from.

And sorry, but I am very much anti-gun. I believe in repealing the second amendment. In this day and age, there really is no justifiable reason to be allowing common citizens to carry a dangerous weapon intended only for killing from a distance.
the_vulture

the_vulture

March 17 2011, 21:27:49 UTC 10 years ago

You've hit the nail on the head regarding gun licensing. Up north, we have to provide criminal record checks and take both written and practical tests to ensure our understanding and ability to own, use, transport and store firearms safely, responsibly and legally in order to obtain an FAC.
fayanora

fayanora

March 17 2011, 21:30:11 UTC 10 years ago

Even that doesn't sound like enough to me. They should give people psychiatrist exams to determine if they're violently crazy or not before giving them a gun license.
the_vulture

the_vulture

March 17 2011, 21:55:33 UTC 10 years ago

Part of the criminal record check includes any history of psychotic behaviour.
fayanora

fayanora

March 18 2011, 00:05:20 UTC 10 years ago

Good to know. Insufficient, but good to know.
the_vulture

the_vulture

March 18 2011, 03:59:06 UTC 10 years ago

I dunno, seems to work pretty well up here.
my_partner_doug

Does not follow

my_partner_doug

March 18 2011, 18:16:34 UTC 10 years ago

"More guns = more bullets flying around = more wounded people."

While this statement is probably true unto and of itself, it has little to do with the Idaho bill that was the original topic of this thread. That legislation does not make it easier for college students to acquire legal weaponry, nor does it provide any motivation (that I can see) for students, or anyone else, to run out and purchase firearms. College campuses are *places*, not *people*, and the proposed law simply creates one more *place* where law-abiding gun owners can carry their weapons: it does not follow that there would be "more guns" as a result of allowing for additional legal geography for the guns that already exist.

Not to mention that it would only have taken only one legally-fired bullet by an armed citizen to have stopped any of the crazed campus shooters *before* they'd have killed as many innocents as died. Suppressing fire adds up to fewer bullets, fewer dead, and fewer wounded.
fayanora

Re: Does not follow

fayanora

March 18 2011, 22:05:04 UTC 10 years ago

Only if they know what they're doing.
my_partner_doug

Re: Does not follow

my_partner_doug

March 18 2011, 22:41:08 UTC 10 years ago

Well, given that the state of Idaho won't issue a hidden carry permit to anyone (this is a non-exhaustive, only partial list) under 21, or with a history of mental illness, or a criminal record (which they take 90 days to investigate), or a dishonorable discharge from the military, or who's had an order of protection issued against them, *and* they require anyone applying for such a license to complete a firearms safety and training course, or demonstrate competence by past performance in shooting competitions or prior military service -- I'd say it's a safe bet that anyone in that state with such a permit *does* "know what they're doing."
alex_antonin

Re: Does not follow

alex_antonin

March 18 2011, 22:48:09 UTC 10 years ago

A little tip that should help you: don't try to have an intelligent conversation with a gun nut, it isn't possible. Guns are like a religion to them, it's worse than trying to have an intelligent discussion of religion with a right-wing Christian. Both gun nuts and right wing Xians, all they hear is what they want to hear, and all they can say is excuses.
ysabetwordsmith

No...

ysabetwordsmith

March 18 2011, 23:09:20 UTC 10 years ago

>>A little tip that should help you: don't try to have an intelligent conversation with a gun nut, it isn't possible.<<

This comment, and others like it, are inappropriate on this blog. This is a venue for the discussion of various topics, including controversial ones. Maturity and respect are expected.
ravan

ravan

March 22 2011, 02:10:07 UTC 10 years ago

So, you are fine with allowing people to wield several thousand pounds of killing machine on a daily basis with their licenses from crackerjack boxes, but draw the lines at guns?

Look at auto accident statistics, and then talk about "common" citizens with dangerous weapons some more.

Most drivers on the road I assume are actively trying to kill me. A gun at least takes some skill to hit their target.
fayanora

fayanora

March 22 2011, 03:37:34 UTC 10 years ago

Ah, the old "cars kill more people than guns" line. An argument that, while true, is moot, because cars are not PURPOSELY DESIGNED to kill people, whereas guns are. Just another bullshit argument from someone who wants to justify owning their favorite overcompensation for a small penis.
the_vulture

the_vulture

March 23 2011, 02:10:30 UTC 10 years ago

You can't conceal a car in a handbag.

  • Doing Things on Time

    Apparently people are bad at estimating how long things will take and then getting them done. We might want to stop calling it a disorder and just…

  • Managed Retreat

    I'm pleased to see someone else admitting that not all cities can stay where they are. This article gives several examples of how cities could adapt…

  • Conformity

    Here's an article about conformity and evil. Now, we know that most humans are contextual and that evil spreads readily. But it leaves out…