Well, the argument that CHL should be allowed on campus has two parts in order to justify it: 1. That CHL actually help to reduce crime 2. That schools shouldn't be exempt I think most people are arguing #1, in the context of a college environment, so discussing the idea of more guns being around is relevant - because that's a result of CHL. Certainly if you just exempt schools, you won't increase the # of guns much, but you will certainly increase the amount of time & # of situations where guns are being carried around (which is the same basic effect, since guns being carried is what is relevant to increasing safety).
Certainly true in some cases. If it occurred in a place of business, chances are the business would report it anyway with whatever information they had (description of the person, etc). But what about situations where a weapon is actually discharged (either the bad guy or the CHL holder)? There should at least be stats on that.
But my argument would be that the reason people feel a need to classify schools as "no-gun" zones is because people with CHL's would carry their guns with them there if not specifically told not to. Therefore, these people would have to believe that the people with CHL's carry their guns with them to other situations outside of campus and taking away the "no-gun zone" would have no effect on that.
Oh man, How many people are going to have to get shot by psycho's and gangsters before we ban concealed guns in this country. Heck, the only gun that should be allowed are sports and hunting rifles - and even then we need to make sure the people who get their hands on them are licensed, trained, and have had their heads checked. This ain't the 18th century where it takes a couple of minutes to load a gun. I'm sure the founders of our country would not have had that in the constitution if they ever could envision what would be happening now. A shot gun is good enough to defend the home - one that only an adult can have the ability to fire. It's good enough to hunt. And it's good enough to do anything but go on rampages or fight gangs. It's time for ALL other weapons to be banned - and to make posession of a gun a felony. Period. Guns are dangerous. People are dying. No shock there. Why do we allow crazy people to carry guns and kill students? All for the NRA nut-jobs and other "survialists" who can't imagine life without their armor piercing bullets?
Exactly! I mean it's obvious that people willing to kill another human being are obviously the same types who are likely to obey gun laws.
I don't want to be abrasive, but if you want to set firearms policy you really should learn the subject. Obviously you aren't actually setting policy, but I assure you that a shotgun is not "good enough for anything". I have no desire to go hunting, but if you told a group of hunters this, without talking about firearms laws, they would oughtright laugh in your face.
Its good enough for him because he doesn;t use guns for anything. Therefore he doesn;t care because he isn't losing any freedom he cares about. His name seems appropriate with his views.
Pardon for responding to both you and FalconTalons since you both bring up the same points. Except these aren't the type of old west quick draw hip holsters. As for arming myself with a sharp object that would depend on what is at hand. I wouldn't try to grab a pair of scissors that I had to take two steps to get. My mistake I had forgotten about that. That said though how many people carry their guns without having some sort of lock on them or having a round in the chamber? If I recall from the previous debate some pointed out that Glock themselves recommend keeping a lock and a round out of the chamber. For that matter if you had your pistol in a quick draw holster that would be concealing it and also putting yourself in a dangerous position where you could be disarmed. You are right I'm not as familiar with guns as you and FalconsTalons are but knowing former cops, hunters and dealing with people in the military I've handled many different guns. I don't doubt that there are some lightweight guns out there but that is still relative and most pistols I've seen weight one or two pounds fully loaded. At the same from my experience with those people is many of them themselves will tell you the same thing as I am regarding the difficulty of using a pistol under those conditions. This is also one of the reasons why many officers I've talked to when encourage learning martial arts over getting a gun. You can't have martial arts skills taken and used against you and its a lot harder to hurt bystanders relying on martial arts. You talk about my example as a crazy scenario but this is exactly the scenario that we are talking about what happened today. You have a homicidal maniac busting into classroom. If trained officers believe they would have a hard time dealing with it how do you expect people who only have civillian level training. I understand this is a demonstration that is done for many cops. My own experience was doing that demonstration both as the attacker and being the pperson with the gun. I wasn't doing it as part of releasing cops from liability but as part of pointing out the limitations of relying on your firearm in self-defense and also on the flipside regarding disarming someone with a gun. Just to answer Roxran's point about retreating and firing we even tried it with the pistol not holstered and but in the person's hand holding down. Even then the attacker would still get there often without a shot fired or fired wildly. Even the training that Roxran had doesn't guarentee success and you're better off blocking and engaging hand to hand than relying on your pistol. Anyway your point that these are basic officers they are still more trained than civillians with CHL so if they can't deal with that how do you expect armed civillians. My main point though with all this isn't to argue for more or less gun control. I still believe in the Constitution enough to recognize the right to own guns and also haven't seen anything to indicate that concealed and carry leads to much more problems. I don't feel that having more firearms is the solution and I think that they will make things more dangerous given that laxer laws will lead to more potentially unstable people having access to guns. On top of that even if decent law abiding people have guns I have a harder time seeing a bunch of panicked people pulling out their guns under a stressful situation being that affective. If anything I see them hurting themselves and other bystanders trying to stop one criminal or even one perceived criminal. Situations like this are awful but they are very very very rare. Given that I see far more danger from a heavily armed citizenry than from the rare homicidal maniac.
I'm really tired of trying to educate people who seem to have alot of opinions and little knowledge about firearms. I'm not even sure what an "oversized clip" is but i sure would like to know when they were illegal. Most of you guys know nothing about guns or their use at all but are so quick to ban them. Or call me crazy for wanting to carry one. Its like someone telling you Yao sucks but never watches a game or cannot even tell you his PPG or RPG. How long could you argue with a person like that?
I think, though he chose a very round-a-bout way of saying it.. he's really just saying that multiple round assault weapons and handguns do not belong in the possession of the citizenry and should be relegated to law enforcement and the military specifically.
A higher than normal capacity magazine that was part of the assault weapons ban that expired (i.e. was not renewed) under the blessing of George Bush on September 14th, 2004. (it was originally passed in 1994)
What? that he's a yankee? And what are yankees? More liberal? And what is liberalisim? Wasn't freeing slaves a liberal idea supported by yankees? damn sorry ass yankees. the right for women to vote? And what about today's liberals who want to feed the poor? damn money grubbers and those who want to protect the environment? and what about gun control? damn yankee liberals think the world would be better not to have guns. and no tax cuts for the most wealthy? once again liberals are wrong These are causes the southern church going conservative folk reject and we all praise jesus christ who rejected all of these liberal ideas. if jesus christ were alive today, he would love the wealthy, and slavery, and supported business interests, and more guns, and hated the poor and down trodden looking for handouts - damn welfare leeches. we southern folk are going to heaven while these liberals are going to HELL!
Just wanted to add again before I get condemned, and not without good reason, as an internet tough guy that while I can talk about what training I've had I can't tell you for certain how I would react in that type of situation. For all I know I might crap in my pants and blubber like a baby. If I did that though even if I had a gun it wouldn't help.
They are just as fast. While you are deciding what to grab an armed person is implementing his weapon. No one with any knowledge carries a Glock unloaded or locked. If you saw or used the IWB system firsthand you would understand how it is fast and not easy to be disarmed. guns> no guns I really cannot say anything more about that. Officers recieve very poor training. I shoot at a range where mostly cops go. They are on average less experienced. They view a gun as a tool for their job. Most CHL holders have used guns their whole lives. What proof do you have of this? Why do you assume cops know more than us? Because they passed a 6 week training course? I mean seriously most of them have never seen a gun before they are cops. I seriously don;t see why you think its better to fight someone who has a gun without a gun. Do you have ANY stats for that? A handgun is heavily armed? Dude please call me when you come to houston next. I will demonstrate CHL handgun use. Its much different than police use. You have no idea of how a holster works, or how it is used.
What exactly is normal? When Glocks were designed in the 80's the model 17 held 17 rounds. They also made a 33 round mag for it. Is that the higher than normal one you are talking about?
if there are less guns out there - and it's illegal to have any kind of gun, it will make it tougher to use one in the killing of another human being. may help cut down on us having one of the highest (if not the highest) murder rate of any "western" or "civilized" nation on earth.
I don't think they have identified the weapon yet. BUt listening to the # of rounds fired up. defenitely a high capacity magazine.
