Sheriff calls for guns on campus

[piercehawkeye45]

If the students want guns on campus, let them vote for it.

[Griff]

I'm not sure voting on other peoples rights is a good thing. *shrug*

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

If the students want guns on campus, let them vote for it.

Its state property so its up to the state. I don't think the students should have any say in the matter.

If there is to be a vote, it should be statewide for all registered voters of that state. A referendum, I believe it is called.

[Griff]

That is an interesting idea linking carrying to property, but since the roadways are state property couldn't that eliminate all off property carrying?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Griff

That is an interesting idea linking carrying to property, but since the roadways are state property couldn't that eliminate all off property carrying?

Yes it does. Without a CC permit, there are very strict guidelines for carrying weapons in motor vehicles, which is the method of choice for most. I don't think they bother the Amish buggies too much.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Beestie

Its state property so its up to the state. I don't think the students should have any say in the matter.

If there is to be a vote, it should be statewide for all registered voters of that state. A referendum, I believe it is called.

I don't like the idea of someone who will never visit or be part of my college campus to have a say on what my "rights" are to own a gun at my college campus. It is an issue that is very personal to the students so it should be in the hands of the students and people who are part of the university, no one else.

If you don't think students are mature enough to have the final say, we don't have the maturity carry a gun on campus. No double standards.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

If the students want guns on campus, let them vote for it.

Again, and again and again... the US is NEVER about the majority voting away the rights of the minority.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Again, and again and again... the US is NEVER about the majority voting away the rights of the minority.

I can agree for the social right of self-preservation but not to hold guns. If you are worried about your protection and the university does not offer something to compensate for a gun, then your point is valid. If the university does offer something in compensation, then the point of owning a gun is not about protection but usually about power. Power is never a good enough reason to protect someone's rights from being voted away by the majority.

You also have to remember that the crime committed at universities is usually different than crimes committed at other places in a city. For example, early last year a group of kids (8-10 of them) would go out at night and then beat random people with baseball bats until they had to go to the hospital. If guns were allowed those kids would certainly have guns too. A gun would not only be ineffective in that situation, but deadly to both groups. The other situation usually happens if someone is alone at night. Your chances of getting robbed or hurt decline dramatically if you stay in groups or have an escort. These apply to most safe, bigger colleges by the way.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I can agree for the social right of self-preservation but not to hold guns. If you are worried about your protection and the university does not offer something to compensate for a gun, then your point is valid. If the university does offer something in compensation, then the point of owning a gun is not about protection but usually about power.

If a situation where you need lethal force were to overtake you -- there is nothing the university could offer, either practicably or extravagantly. Less trouble, actually, for you to handle it rather than saddle the university with some kind of bodyguard obligation.

The power to save life is a worthy power indeed. I do not reject it.

You also have to remember that the crime committed at universities is usually different than crimes committed at other places in a city. For example, early last year a group of kids (8-10 of them) would go out at night and then beat random people with baseball bats until they had to go to the hospital. If guns were allowed those kids would certainly have guns too. A gun would not only be ineffective in that situation, but deadly to both groups. The other situation usually happens if someone is alone at night. Your chances of getting robbed or hurt decline dramatically if you stay in groups or have an escort. These apply to most safe, bigger colleges by the way.

I'd hardly call this "different" from any other gang-up assault. Such goblin-children need to be shot immediately they attempt such assault. One of them hit would likely be enough, but the self-defense man will try for three minimum. A group with ball bats is readily lethal enough to justify lethal force in self defense. Such nasty people must be rendered pantsfilling scared of ever doing such things again, for clearly their minds have insufficient check on their urge to be brutal. When that is the case, sufficient check must be supplied. While arrest and imprisonment may dissuade them sufficiently, seeing their pals-in-brutality go down in a pink mist dissuades permanently.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

If a situation where you need lethal force were to overtake you -- there is nothing the university could offer, either practicably or extravagantly. Less trouble, actually, for you to handle it rather than saddle the university with some kind of bodyguard obligation.

The power to save life is a worthy power indeed. I do not reject it.

Guns also have the power to take lives. If allowing guns saves one life in three years but takes five a year, it is not worth it. You have to look at it from the other side too.

I'd hardly call this "different" from any other gang-up assault. Such goblin-children need to be shot immediately they attempt such assault. One of them hit would likely be enough, but the self-defense man will try for three minimum. A group with ball bats is readily lethal enough to justify lethal force in self defense. Such nasty people must be rendered pantsfilling scared of ever doing such things again, for clearly their minds have insufficient check on their urge to be brutal. When that is the case, sufficient check must be supplied. While arrest and imprisonment may dissuade them sufficiently, seeing their pals-in-brutality go down in a pink mist dissuades permanently.

So if you had a gun and you got attacked by eight guys with guns you would shoot at them? You be dead before you got to guy number two, if that.

S-a good thing my rights are none of your business.

Everyone has equal rights so it is my business. The idea of the right to own guns was to satisfy our biological need of self-preservation. If you can effectively satisfy your biological need of self-preservation without guns, then you do not need guns for self-preservation.