Gunowner quiz on Obama

[diesel96]

I'm from the real world and I never suggested we could stop all college age kids from drinking, what I suggested was to remove the beer drinking from the campus which should not be all that difficult to do. We are talking about a pretty defined, closed area. Maybe some of that beefed up security would help.

That would suck for the legal age students and veterans that live on campus.

I never said I would hand over a gun to a wild eyed testosterone filled kid. I would make certain that the kid in question was well trained and a responsible individual, THEN I would consider it. Then the "kid" would have the possible opportunity to stop the nut job before he slaughters you kid. IF that happened you would be calling him a hero and not a wild eyed......

In order for you to consider this, you would first have to become state certified Gun instructer, then lobby the state and the Universities to allow guns in the classroom. Then deputized a "student" to act as "classroom commando" because he or she can shoot a target. Not only is this an insult to law enforcement officials training regiments, but what if the "nutjob" shooter overpowers your "student deputy" and uses that gun to slaughter more students and a few campus police guards. What would you be calling him then..a goat?.....If you have a concealed weapons permit, then I would suggest you follow the University's policies.

Oh no Genius , don't worry about anyone else's rights as long as you can feel safe that the "Guns Banned" signs will stop nut jobs from wreaking havoc. Oh wait, that's right, it has already been proven time and time again, the signs don't protect anyone except the very people we need protecting from.
We should not be disarming responsible, knowledgeable citizens.

The debate is not about disarming college aged kids, if your over 21 go ahead get your concealed liscense, but leave it out of the classroom. When one enters the arena of debate armed in the literal sense rather than the figurative sense, the fundamental nature of the interaction is changed dramatically.
It is difficult enough to maintain order in a bustling college community as it is. Already there are faculty who are concerned about the way their students react. The residence halls' staff already have their hands full with people who are not used to sharing space in a community setting. The campus police are already on high alert when patrolling the campus at night or during large events. Add to that the uncertainty about whether or not a person whom they or you are about to confront is armed, and the concern and tension increases two folds.

In an armed campus society, faculty will become more afraid. Housing staff will be less inclined to confront behavior. Police are more likely to have their hands poised on their weapons in any questionable situation. The addition of weapons into the campus community is like a catalyst in a chemical reaction. It changes everything.

Many will say that if there had been armed students or staff at Virginia Tech that the assailant would have been stopped in his tracks. Who knows, it could have added to the chaos as well. If the police had arrived on the scene and confronted students and staff wielding their own weapons in order to defend themselves, law-enforcement officers would have been faced with trying to sort out the shooter from those trying to protect themselves and others. With so many people brandishing guns, the situation would become even more dangerous.

Ultimately, I would hope that people, including our legislators, will see that college and university campuses are basically safe environments. Shootings are very rare occasions. In other words, a non-student is 20 times more likely to be a victim than a student on a college campus.

 

[Catatonic]

.....View attachment 542

.
Hey...this is an aggregious attack on my private life.
Did my 1st wife give you this picture of me?

 

[trplnkl]

That would suck for the legal age students and veterans that live on campus.
Tell that to the Mom that had to bury her child because a drunk legal age student or veteran has ran them over on campus.



In order for you to consider this, you would first have to become state certified Gun instructer, then lobby the state and the Universities to allow guns in the classroom. Then deputized a "student" to act as "classroom commando" because he or she can shoot a target. Not only is this an insult to law enforcement officials training regiments, but what if the "nutjob" shooter overpowers your "student deputy" and uses that gun to slaughter more students and a few campus police guards. What would you be calling him then..a goat?.....If you have a concealed weapons permit, then I would suggest you follow the University's policies.

True enough you would have to follow all those steps, but only because the so called "Gun Free Zones" have already been established by legislation out of fear that people are automatically "nuts" because they own a gun. Yeah know we gotta protect everyone from gun nuts, so put this sign up and all is well.
I can't speak about concealed hand gun permits anywhere else but Texas, here there is some pretty tough training and education that comes before the permit is granted. So through design holders of the permits have already been deemed as responsible citizens. No system is perfect, none can guarantee anyone's safety.
I see no way that this would be an insult to LEO's training regiments. Who do you think conducts 95% of hand gun permit classes?
We can do "what if's" till the cows come home and they don't prove anything. The point is and always will be, an armed individual is better equipped to protect themselves than anyone unarmed.

The debate is not about disarming college aged kids, if your over 21 go ahead get your concealed liscense, but leave it out of the classroom. When one enters the arena of debate armed in the literal sense rather than the figurative sense, the fundamental nature of the interaction is changed dramatically.
It is difficult enough to maintain order in a bustling college community as it is. Already there are faculty who are concerned about the way their students react. The residence halls' staff already have their hands full with people who are not used to sharing space in a community setting. The campus police are already on high alert when patrolling the campus at night or during large events. Add to that the uncertainty about whether or not a person whom they or you are about to confront is armed, and the concern and tension increases two folds.
I'm not the one that brought disarming college campuses into this debate,(a quick review shows that it was YOU that first brought up college campuses) but you are right that this didn't start about college campuses. The debate started from the notion of disarming American citizens, which BTW most college students are American citizens.
Isn't this where your "beefed up security" comes in? With no other means of protection we have to rely on understaffed and in some cases under trained campus cops.

In an armed campus society, faculty will become more afraid. Housing staff will be less inclined to confront behavior. Police are more likely to have their hands poised on their weapons in any questionable situation. The addition of weapons into the campus community is like a catalyst in a chemical reaction. It changes everything.

When I was in high school, more than half of the pickups in the school parking lot had rifles in the back window gun racks. Thus this was an armed campus. No shootings took place, most of the time the door windows stayed down in the warmer months and the doors never locked. No thefts that I ever heard of. The biggest problem with society today is society.

Many will say that if there had been armed students or staff at Virginia Tech that the assailant would have been stopped in his tracks. Who knows, it could have added to the chaos as well. If the police had arrived on the scene and confronted students and staff wielding their own weapons in order to defend themselves, law-enforcement officers would have been faced with trying to sort out the shooter from those trying to protect themselves and others. With so many people brandishing guns, the situation would become even more dangerous.
What I have maintained is that an armed student or staffer would at least had a chance to stop the killer, with everyone else unarmed, well we know what happened. If the police follow their training regiments, the situation could be gotten under control. I nor anyone else that I have seen is advocating that every student and/or staffer at a college campus should be packing heat. But responsible, law abiding citizens should not be punished out of fear of the "WHAT IFs".

Ultimately, I would hope that people, including our legislators, will see that college and university campuses are basically safe environments. Shootings are very rare occasions. In other words, a non-student is 20 times more likely to be a victim than a student on a college campus.
I don't know where you pull those stats out of, but I don't disagree that a college campus usually is more safe than the rest of a community. However the campus provides a mass of people to be slaughtered with little resistance.

 

[trplnkl]

.
Hey...this is an aggregious attack on my private life.
Did my 1st wife give you this picture of me?

Thought that guy looked familiar.

 

[over9five]

 

[av8torntn]

One quick question. Did binge drinking increase when they raised the drinking age?

 

[diesel96]

One quick question. Did binge drinking increase when they raised the drinking age?

Actually, I believe raising the drinking age has spurred on more drinking binges by college age kids. However, Principles, Professors and Universities are debating and lobbying towards lowering the drinking age would lesson that practise. But a high percentage of High School to College age kids, especially when away from home for the first time will be cutting loose and drinking alcohol. And studies have shown that the ones that aspire to carry concealed weapons on campus are the ones most likley to party and take chances. Hey, I'm all for legal gun ownership, just not in a classroom - campus atmosphere. Besides, there may be other students in that classroom feeling very uncomfortable knowing someone has a loaded gun in their backpack pointed right at them.

 

[trplnkl]

Actually, I believe raising the drinking age has spurred on more drinking binges by college age kids. However, Principles, Professors and Universities are debating and lobbying towards lowering the drinking age would lesson that practise. But a high percentage of High School to College age kids, especially when away from home for the first time will be cutting loose and drinking alcohol. And studies have shown that the ones that aspire to carry concealed weapons on campus are the ones most likley to party and take chances. Hey, I'm all for legal gun ownership, just not in a classroom - campus atmosphere. Besides, there may be other students in that classroom feeling very uncomfortable knowing someone has a loaded gun in their backpack pointed right at them.

I am adamantly opposed to lower the drinking age to 18, for one reason. There are many 18 years olds still in high school, just imagine how easy that makes it for under 18 year olds to acquire alcohol, it's easy enough as it is.
The word studies is just another way to say statistics, and we all know (or should) that stats are a very manipulative process. I'm not saying that the studies in this instance are incorrect, just that the out come well could have been manipulated with a predetermined goal in mind. It is possible.

I would feel very uncomfortable with some nut job busting through the door with an assault rifle and me with only a pencil.

As far as the link you supplied above, at first glance, it's just more yadda yadda from both sides of a debate, not unlike what anyone can read on this thread. But thanks for posting it anyway.

 

[av8torntn]

Actually, I believe raising the drinking age has spurred on more drinking binges by college age kids. However, Principles, Professors and Universities are debating and lobbying towards lowering the drinking age would lesson that practise. But a high percentage of High School to College age kids, especially when away from home for the first time will be cutting loose and drinking alcohol. And studies have shown that the ones that aspire to carry concealed weapons on campus are the ones most likley to party and take chances. Hey, I'm all for legal gun ownership, just not in a classroom - campus atmosphere. Besides, there may be other students in that classroom feeling very uncomfortable knowing someone has a loaded gun in their backpack pointed right at them.

Just seems to me that government regulation normally has to opposite effect of the intentions.

 

[soberups]

And studies have shown that the ones that aspire to carry concealed weapons on campus are the ones most likley to party and take chances.

Please provide a link or a source to this study. My hunch is that this "study" is nothing more than one of your personal beliefs, and has no factual basis.

I have a concealed weapons permit. To obtain it, I had to go through an NCIS and FBI background check. I was fingerprinted. I paid $185. It took almost a month for the check to be completed and the records to be verified before the permit was approved. Criminals and party animals either cannot or will not subject themselves to such exhaustive scrutiny.

 

[soberups]

Besides, there may be other students in that classroom feeling very uncomfortable knowing someone has a loaded gun in their backpack pointed right at them.

I have attended numerous school functions and events with my kids while carrying a concealed, loaded 9mm handgun.

No one was "uncomfortable" because no one knew. Thats why they call it a concealed weapon permit.

I imagine that the unarmed Virgina Tech students who got murdered felt very "uncomfortable" prior to being shot by the criminal who conveniently ignored the "gun free" zone that was nothing more than an invisible line around the campus. I would also imagine that if their families could go back in time and change things, they would have been quite "comfortable" with a concealed weapon in the hands of a law-abiding person on campus who could have used that weapon to stop the slaughter.

"Gun free" zones dont work. They serve no purpose other than to make liberal pillow-biters "feel" safer and to provide a convenient pool of unarmed, helpless victims to a would-be killer.

Virginia Tech was a "gun free" zone.
Columbine H.S. was a "gun free" zone.
Thurston H.S. was a "gun free" zone.
Jonesboro elementary was a "gun free" zone.

Every single school shooting that has occured in the last 20 years has happened in a "gun free" zone. How many more kids have to die before we quit chasing the "gun free zone" fantasy and start living in the real word?

 

[over9five]

I agree. Gun free zones are crime magnets. Nothing better for a criminal than knowing HE is the only one with a gun.

 

[The Other Side]

The issue of guns will have many scenarios. The "superman" scenario that you describe while carrying your concealed weapon may sound like the ultimate solution, but there are many factors that have to go completely perfect in order for this to be successful.

The problem with gun owners who think that they can bring down someone is always from a point of view after the fact. Studies show, gun owners are typically more likely to have their own weapons used on them versus the perpetrator.

But the real issue here is how politicians use guns to get us (the citizens) to fight with one another every 4 years.

The politicians know that the country is divided on guns and gun ownership. While there are some grounds of acceptance, guns still represent evil in many communities in many cities.

In some rural part of the country guns may be a way of life and people understand this, but in a city like Compton California, guns are hated and citizens are outraged that they exist on the city streets.

It isnt a matter of the 2nd amendment in Compton as it would be in rural america.

There will always be a diiference of opinion with respect for guns and the politicians know that all they have to do is mention it during a campaign and we will do the rest.

There is NO credible evidence that outlawing guns will be on the agenda of an OBAMA presidency and to believe such is to participate in the circus that is the campaign.

As for people carrying guns on campus. What about liability? There are thousands of "negative" scenarios to consider. What if "your" concealed weapon had to be drawn because someone was shooting on campus and you took out your gun and began firind trying to take the person down and in the process, you inadvertently shot and killed a couple of bystanders with "missed" shots?

Should you be held liable?

Should you be put in jail?

What should the penalty be for this?

Do you get a pass from killing innocent persons because you were in superman mode?

The gun can be empowering indeed, but there is always a down side to its use.

As I said in the begining, there would have to be a perfect scenario in order for you to protect anyone.

Chaos brings chaos. Your gun will only add to it.

What about the gunmans rights (not that I care about them) isnt he entitled to due process for his crimes or would you be Judge, Jury and Executioner?

Think about it.

 

[tieguy]

The issue of guns will have many scenarios. The "superman" scenario that you describe while carrying your concealed weapon may sound like the ultimate solution, but there are many factors that have to go completely perfect in order for this to be successful.

The problem with gun owners who think that they can bring down someone is always from a point of view after the fact. Studies show, gun owners are typically more likely to have their own weapons used on them versus the perpetrator.

But the real issue here is how politicians use guns to get us (the citizens) to fight with one another every 4 years.

The politicians know that the country is divided on guns and gun ownership. While there are some grounds of acceptance, guns still represent evil in many communities in many cities.

In some rural part of the country guns may be a way of life and people understand this, but in a city like Compton California, guns are hated and citizens are outraged that they exist on the city streets.

It isnt a matter of the 2nd amendment in Compton as it would be in rural america.

There will always be a diiference of opinion with respect for guns and the politicians know that all they have to do is mention it during a campaign and we will do the rest.

There is NO credible evidence that outlawing guns will be on the agenda of an OBAMA presidency and to believe such is to participate in the circus that is the campaign.

As for people carrying guns on campus. What about liability? There are thousands of "negative" scenarios to consider. What if "your" concealed weapon had to be drawn because someone was shooting on campus and you took out your gun and began firind trying to take the person down and in the process, you inadvertently shot and killed a couple of bystanders with "missed" shots?

Should you be held liable?

Should you be put in jail?

What should the penalty be for this?

Do you get a pass from killing innocent persons because you were in superman mode?

The gun can be empowering indeed, but there is always a down side to its use.

As I said in the begining, there would have to be a perfect scenario in order for you to protect anyone.

Chaos brings chaos. Your gun will only add to it.

What about the gunmans rights (not that I care about them) isnt he entitled to due process for his crimes or would you be Judge, Jury and Executioner?

Think about it.

Susan always desired to be the one stirring up the conversation. Thus if you look she has started about half of the threads currently showing under current events. The commentary posted in this post was meant to stir up some dialogue. The abundance of posts, new threads, posted links and her efforts to be the straw here stirring the drink. Yep somehow, someway my girl is back.

 

[over9five]

Good post, TOS. I would however have to strongly disagree with your statement that "Studies show, gun owners are typically more likely to have their own weapons used on them versus the perpetrator".

Did you know that Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year? Most times without firing a shot.

When Florida began issueing concealed carry permits, its homicide fell by 37% when the natl ROSE 15%.

Criminals are more afraid of an armed homeowner than police. (IMO police are only there to make the chalk lines around the bodies and write the report).

 

[over9five]

I won't go anywhere that is a gun free zone.

 

[soberups]

In some rural part of the country guns may be a way of life and people understand this, but in a city like Compton California, guns are hated and citizens are outraged that they exist on the city streets.

It isnt a matter of the 2nd amendment in Compton as it would be in rural america.

.

Are you stating then that the citizens of Compton should not have the same constitutional rights as those in a rural area?

Are the citizens outraged at inantimate objects (guns) , or at the criminals who are allowed to run free and use them? Or are they outraged at the fact that California law is hostile to gun owners and denies law abiding ciizens the right to carry weapons to protect themselves with?

The 2nd amendment should apply everywhere. It is part of the Bill of Rights. Should other constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech or religion, be denied based upon geographical location?

 

[diesel96]

I am adamantly opposed to lower the drinking age to 18, for one reason. There are many 18 years olds still in high school, just imagine how easy that makes it for under 18 year olds to acquire alcohol, it's easy enough as it is.

There are many 18 to 20 year old's fighting and willing to die for this country, I'm sure Av8 will back me up on that. There are also 18 to 20 yr old's that will be charged as adults if committing a crime. I don't encourage binge drinking either but who are we to tell these kids they can't drink at all. We should enforce strick laws making sure they understand the penalties of drinking and driving though and should teach children effects of heavy alcohol abuse use as well as smoking does to your body.

Just seems to me that government regulation normally has to opposite effect of the intentions.

In matters such as the drinking age, I may lean toward the state handling there own populus rather than the Feds. But I still feel if you can fight and die for this country than you should be treated as an adult.
The state law was 18 when I became legal (which was changed to 21 soon after), maybe I'm a little biased....

Please provide a link or a source to this study. My hunch is that this "study" is nothing more than one of your personal beliefs, and has no factual basis..

National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, it's in the link I previously posted already.

I have attended numerous school functions and events with my kids while carrying a concealed, loaded 9mm handgun.

No one was "uncomfortable" because no one knew. Thats why they call it a concealed weapon permit.

Careful, you can get arrested by carrying a gun to school that's declared a firearm free zone punishable up to 5 years in some states.

 

[soberups]

There is NO credible evidence that outlawing guns will be on the agenda of an OBAMA presidency and to believe such is to participate in the circus that is the campaign.

I go by Obama's voting record. He is on record...repeatedly...as being extremely hostile to the rights of gun owners. And as President, he will have the ability to sign into law whatever anti-gun legislation is placed before him by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who is one of the most anti-gun politicians to ever hold office.

I dont think Obama hates guns; I think he has no understanding of them. He grew up and has lived in an urban enviornment, with no father. I would be less worried about him as President if there was a Republican majority in the House and Senate who wouldnt send him any anti-gun bills to sign, but with Queen Pelosi calling the shots in the House, four years of an Obma administration is going to be a gun owner's worst nightmare.

 

[soberups]

Careful, you can get arrested by carrying a gun to school that's declared a firearm free zone punishable up to 5 years in some states.

Not in Oregon, if you have a concealed weapon permit. In Oregon, only the Legislature can pass any sort of gun regulation. Cities, counties, school districts etc. cannot regulate firearms, there is a "pre-emption clause" that prohibits any municipality from enacting any gun related ordinance or law.

Private property owners can have "firearm free zones" but the requirements for adequate signage are fairly strict. Failing to obey a "firearm free zone" on private property is considered criminal tresspassing.