CHL on campus

No they don't. Try again.

 

The job of a criminal defense lawyer is to make sure that the government meets its burden of proof - guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If an officer has something in their record which indicates bias or a disregard for the law, then they have created that situation, and it becomes germane.

The job of the prosecution is to put together a case that meets their burden of proof.

It sounds as though you have an axe to grind because the law does not allow you to run roughshod over a citizen of this country because in your mind they are "clearly guilty."



See...I can do it too.

 

I don't think I could effectively defend myself with a handgun, it's hard to aim

But grenades, that's another story

I want CGL!

 

Before we go down this road, let me restate my point. Please try to actually comprehend it this time.

You don't need a gun for self-defense. This is uncontroversial. If threatened, you will defend yourself every time whether or not you have a gun.

Now, there are many ways of defending yourself, and each one has a varying degree of efficacy depending on the situation. In most situations, a can of mace or a taser is equally as effective as a gun in achieving the required level of defense. In rare situations, a gun is more effective.

The question of whether or not CHLs should be allowed to carry on campus has absolutely nothing with one's right to self-defense. It has everything to do with whether the increase in defense efficacy provided by guns outweighs any potential harm. This is how the debate should be framed.

 

Actually... that's not what I said at all. In fact, that's the opposite of what I said:

You should at least attempt to comprehend what others write, considering all the whining you do about changing peoples' minds.

 

Na, not at all.
I just hate to see someone guilty as sin get off because of a simple, simple technicality. It is especially bad with a DWI. Someone is drunk as all get out, admits to being drunk, can't stand up, can't walk a line, but an attorney will try to get him off questioning for your proficiency in the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. I know they have a job to do, but it gets ridiculous sometimes. It's good to be a criminal in our justice system in a lot of cases.
We have some awesome rights as a citizen of this country, but some times I feel we have too many rights.

And DAs. All they're worried about are convictions. And they only take the obvious ones they know they can get a conviction on.

I.E. guy is trying to break into a habitation (apartment). He is prying at the door. Instead of letting him enter and then stopping him officer stops him before he makes entry. DA won't take case for attempted burglary of habitation; a felony I mind you. Guess it would be too hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.



Anyways, what's this thread about? Oh yeah, we should allow CHLs on our universities.

 

IMO the risk of theoretical accidents and theoretical homicides made easier to execute in a very population dense environment is much greater than theoretical risk in such an environment of not being able to defend oneself in a hypothetical encounter where one might have a chance to if they had time to pull a gun out and shoot and disable with accuracy.

I'll take my chances being the victim of a 1 and a multi million Looney on a insane and premeditated killing spree than arming every Tom, Dick and Harry only for one of them to receive a bad grade/go through a bad break-up/have a little too late drinking session/all night study bender, and having them lose it for 5 seconds where the consequences are forever.

This isn't rocket science folks, just the most basic and overwhelming probabilities at play here.

BTW if you want to keep your rifle secured at home or at the range I have no problem with that.

 

Again, if you want to go on a killing spree or shoot a teacher for making a bad grade, chances are you don't have a CHL anyways and a handgun law isn't going to stop you.
I am willing to bet a lot on the fact that NOT ONE CHL holder has ever gone postal/started killing people/killed a professor. Not one.

 

Many major mental illnesses (Bipolar disorder, Schizophrenia, anxiety disorders, panic disorders, etc.) first manifest themselves in people in their early twenties.

Source: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disorders-in-america.shtml

 

I'll take this as you conceding the point that the right to self defense is irrelevant to the debate.

 

And not being allowed to carry a concealed grenade in my pocket also hurts my ability to defend myself. This is why you have to evaluate the marginal necessity of carrying a gun over alternatives vs. the potential harm.

 

I agree. And even if you have a handgun, they could blow up the classroom.

What I am more concerned with is every Tom, Dick and Harry with a handgun in a dense area and for accidents and 5 second misjudgements (alcohol, personal break ups, mad about grades, whatever) leading to fatalities. Most everyone, and in particular, adolescents, go through normal bouts of depression and stress. Having a plethera of guns that allow themselves to kill themselves or others in a momentary lapse of judgement or momentary rock bottom of normal life stuff is a terrible idea. This kind of stuff is impossible to screen out, don't make it easier for this moments to have more severe consequences.