yeah ive always wanted someone to bring this issue to court. most places just have a pic of a gun w/ a line through it but the law states they need to post a 30.06 sign w/ other specifications for the gun ban to be legal. what were insurance premiums prior to chl? (adjusted for inflation of course) im fairly certain insurance companies would jack up premiums bc they already do it anyways. allowing guns would just be another excuse to jack it up even more. look how much they charge for an 18 year old driver vs a 28 year old driver.
they do that because they have analysts who look at the stats. If they raised it specifically for not having a 30.06 signs you would see them all over the place. And the simple fact is you don't
This is for the CALL 911 guys. 5 minutes can be a LIFETIME! <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OkS8mdbml0A&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OkS8mdbml0A&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
This is fantastic...all of your arguments are predicated on the idea that CHL holders aren't criminals and yet here the two of you are coming up with "plausible" ways to get out of a murder charge if you shoot someone with a tazer...I feel much safer now knowing you two are premeditating your perjury so you can shoot someone who points a tazer at you. By the way, just saying you thought it was a gun (even if you're a cop) doesn't get you off the hook, DAs aren't as dumb as you think
Look here clown. Do you know what you go off of? What the PERSON KNEW AT THE TIME. If someone points a Taser at me and I think it is a gun at the time he pointed it, I am JUSTIFIED in killing him, officer or not. Same goes as if I knew it was a Taser. A Taser can make you feel threatened for your life. If AT THE TIME you believed that he was going to possibly kill you once the Taser had immobilized you, you're justified in killing him. Plus, in my comment you quoted, that's all you're supposed to say. You don't want to start spilling your guts on the scene if you do have to take a life. You would want some advice from a lawyer and you have that right.
Ooh...name calling, always the mark of an intelligent argument. Why don't you re-read your previous quotes before back peddling, you initially said if someone pointed a tazer at you, they'd be signed, sealed delivered to the cemetary. Then you said you'd claim it was a gun. That has nothing to do with what you believed, that's you coming up with ways to cover your ass. Second, you may be a cop, but I'm a lawyer - and your "legal expertise" is just flat out wrong. The fear of being tazed and immobilized doesn't justify lethal force and I promise you your stance would get you prosecuted and indicted, trust me on this one.
I agree on a CHL holder but if someone tazed a cop thats different. People have died from tazers and cops openly carry firearms. Intentionally incapacitating a law enforcement officer is justification for deadly force. Not sure what kinda law you practice but there have been many cops who have used deadly force against people with no weapons.
Ever heard of the "Totality of the Circumstances?" I did not back peddle. The way I stated it was is that you have more than one option in that situation. But for the sake of this argument a Taser looks like a gun.
But based on what they "knew at the time" they thought there was a weapon? Hear about the 3 officer in New York who were found not guilty in the criminal suit (you know they're going to be sued to no end)? Guy got blasted 50 times and didn't have a weapon.
Not really. For instance if a guy comes up to a cop and just starts swinging and possibly connects on a few blows. Legally I am restricted to if I am getting blows to the head neck or spine, but I doubt the same limitations apply to a cop. The major difference is why is the person going after the cop? Basically that always a bad move legally, where I would have to first prove it was not me starting the whole thing.
If you allow anybody with a CHL to carry on campus, you may not be providing guns to the student body, but you are ratifying thousands of guns on campus. I, for one, am uncomfortable with a small platoon being on campus. If you implement my solution, the Va Tech shooter would have been dropped by one of the armed "plants" very soon into the incident. Lives would have been saved. For all other self defense issues on campus (robberies at night, rape, etc) a good many of these can be prevented by the widespread use of campus escorts, etc. You stay out of a good many of those situations by using forethought.
I know several people who have a CHL who are an asshat carrying a gun. As long as you do not have a mental health history and have not been convicted of a felony, you can readily pass the background check. It is a good system, but it is far from perfect. I support CHL laws, but I just believe that a college campus (being the environment that it is) is fundamentally different.
Thousands? Really 1-2% of the population has a CHL in Virginia tech has ~30K students. That 1-2% is very much weighed heavier to older people. Can you explain what "ratifying thousands of guns on campus" means? How? The police were there within minutes. The campus police were there faster. police cannot be everywhere. The first responders did what they could. you "plan" is more cops.
yet none of your arguments as to how it is different hold water. Its not an airplane or a polling place. Its apartments, research buildings, restaurants, sidewalks, and people.
College is a place that is prone to activism. If you allow guns on campus, there will be student groups who actively seek like-minded people to assist them in the CHL process. At a large university, take UT as an example with alomost 50,000 students. Roughly 25% of them are going to be 21 or over. That is 12,500 potential CHL holders. You take those student groups which recruit, and even if they only get 8% of the eligible persons to join, that is 1,000 CHL holders on campus. Take your gun out of your ear and put it back in the holster for a moment. If you bothered to read and think rather than to overreact, you'd notice that my "plan" is to have plain clothes officers in each building. There would be no lead time for them to get there. They would be there already. All they would have to do is react to the situation...just the same as anybody carrying a gun. You know what? When I go to an A&M football game, I don't want to have to worry about who may be carrying a gun while they are tailgating on campus. You cannot separate the property in general from that. It is the same property. Fortunately the state legislature agrees with me on this one.
It costs over 200 dollars, 8 hours classes, filling out explicit details about your past. Its not a vote registration card. Only 1000 people out of 200,000 are 21 and holding CHL's. That stat shows everything. A cop in every building of every school, yet you claim its not just more cops. The VTECH guy locked doors. What happens there? Who pays for these cops? would the accidental deaths you save with this extremely expensive program not be less than the same money spent in making public roads safer? or research for a disease? or thousands of other things? the numbers you posted are a huge stretch. thats a fact the cops in every building will never happen (why not? because it has not yet happened) and it still is not effective. When will the cop come? probably after someone is <strike>shot </strike> executed right?
I know this. My CHL is in process. What percentage of college students are 21? What percentage of them are likely to want a CHL? Those would be more relevant stats. It is a MUCH better alternative than allowing guns on a college campus. Yet you have been unwilling or unable to post relevant stats that show my numbers are a stretch. Until you can do so, we'll have to assume that you are merely blowing smoke. If you allowed guns on campus, the CHL holders would not be able to react until after somebody was shot. There just wouldn't be time to recognize the danger and react fast enough to prevent it. You have no point here. The FACT of the matter is that you cannot carry on a college campus because there is a prohibition on carrying guns on state property. If you lift that prohibition, then the state capitol, courthouses, etc etc are all fair game. BAD IDEA.
