Sheriff calls for guns on campus
In a recent editorial, Larimer County (Colorado) Sheriff Jim Alderden wrote, "One of the real tragedies of the situation at Virginia Tech is that misguided administrators created a gun-free zone."
Colorado State University allows students and faculty to carry concealed firearms on campus. Alderden says the last thing universities should do right now is create more gun control.
"When you create an area where law-abiding citizens can't defend themselves, it just creates a greater opportunity for those who are criminally-minded," Alderden said.
You can read the rest of the article
here.
Of course, not everyone agrees with this, but I think he makes a good point.
Do y'all have your tickets...? To the gun show!
I've said elsewhere it's a bad idea, this creating hunting preserves for crazies. Glad to see somebody will say the same ex officio or is it ex cathedra?
(Did half my growing up in Larimer County.)
I await the second half with breathless antici
pation.
All it would have taken is one trained, armed citizen and it would have been over.
It will rarely work like that. Campuses are too big and the risks of putting guns in campuses are too high.
It will rarely work like that. Campuses are too big and the risks of putting guns in campuses are too high.
Sorry Pierce, ol' mate. But we just attend huge campuses like Minnesota and Illinois, our 30, 40k student bodies aren't the norm. Some campuses are smaller than some urban high schools. I know kids going to 1400 or 3000 small private colleges whilst Lane Tech High School in Chicago has nearly 6000 pupils!
Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45
It will rarely work like that. Campuses are too big and the risks of putting guns in campuses are too high.
How is a campus any different than anywhere else?
What the hell are you talking about?
Ok, maybe I was leaning more towards bigger campuses for that argument.
What sums my argument up is, the good of putting guns on campuses will not outweigh the bad. The chances of a shooting on campus occurring is one in a million and then the chances of actually being able to stop it is another one in a million. The chances of some fucking prick getting a gun, getting drunk, and using it to show off or intimidate others is much higher. I'm not saying that will happen a lot but the chances are much greater than actually stopping a school shooting for various reasons. And, as I've said many times, campuses do a lot for protection so you do not need one if you use the resources they provide you.
And, as I've said many times, campuses do a lot for protection so you do not need one if you use the resources they provide you.
It really depends on where you go to school. Some schools have better resources than others. We have a school down here that is basically imbedded with the city of Savannah, it is called SCAD. They have clusters of buildings that are owned by the school but they are all over the city. There is a
LOT of crime here. The SCAD cops don't even carry guns. They have to depend on the local cops, who have their hands full already to take care of the kids. It does not work very well. We already have CCW permits for state residents but the majority of these kids are from all around the states.
Ok, maybe I was leaning more towards bigger campuses for that argument.
What sums my argument up is, the good of putting guns on campuses will not outweigh the bad. The chances of a shooting on campus occurring is one in a million and then the chances of actually being able to stop it is another one in a million. The chances of some fucking prick getting a gun, getting drunk, and using it to show off or intimidate others is much higher. I'm not saying that will happen a lot but the chances are much greater than actually stopping a school shooting for various reasons. And, as I've said many times, campuses do a lot for protection so you do not need one if you use the resources they provide you.
None of that addresses that fact that owning and carrying a weapon is an adult's right & responsibility.
Being on a campus means nothing.
It really depends on where you go to school. Some schools have better resources than others. We have a school down here that is basically imbedded with the city of Savannah, it is called SCAD. They have clusters of buildings that are owned by the school but they are all over the city. There is a LOT of crime here. The SCAD cops don't even carry guns. They have to depend on the local cops, who have their hands full already to take care of the kids. It does not work very well. We already have CCW permits for state residents but the majority of these kids are from all around the states.
Good point.
None of that addresses that fact that owning and carrying a weapon is an adult's right & responsibility.
Being on a campus means nothing.
A campus is much different from the surrounding areas. It is much safer......er....usually (thank you Merc) much safer and usually more patrolled. There will always be violent crimes with or without guns and I think a lot of universities, especially mine, has done a great job of keeping the students safe without the need to carry a gun for protection.
The time I can think of supporting guns on campus is if the students vote to allow guns be on that campus, if there is no vote or the vote loses, then guns should stay banned. That is the only fair and safe way I see campuses and gun control working out.
It is not up to others to say what a free person needs.
It is not up to others to say what a free person needs.
Within reason, right? Oh, wait...what is reasonable?
Oh. I guess we have to discuss that part and come to an agreement. There is no black and white answer.
It is not up to others to say what a free person needs.
Good call rkzenrage. That bears repeating. The idea that we need to make criminal friendly areas because citizens are not to be trusted really burns my shorts. I don't want a heavy police presence, that is a sign of failing top heavy civilization.
Within reason, right? Oh, wait...what is reasonable?
Oh. I guess we have to discuss that part and come to an agreement. There is no black and white answer.
Rocket launchers don't fit in my briefcase or backpack.:rolleyes:
I got a rocket launcher in my britches.
I agree, but... there's this nagging memory of college kids away from home for the first time, binge drinking and being nuts. Even as the exception they would be scary.
I say go all the way with a pocket nuke.
Ok, maybe I was leaning more towards bigger campuses for that argument.
What sums my argument up is, the good of putting guns on campuses will not outweigh the bad. The chances of a shooting on campus occurring is one in a million and then the chances of actually being able to stop it is another one in a million. The chances of some fucking prick getting a gun, getting drunk, and using it to show off or intimidate others is much higher. I'm not saying that will happen a lot but the chances are much greater than actually stopping a school shooting for various reasons. And, as I've said many times, campuses do a lot for protection so you do not need one if you use the resources they provide you.
Well done, sir.
There's no denying the truth of your remarks--it's happening already on and off campuses. The combination of new-found freedom from parental oversight, youthful inexperience in many things, alcohol, and the frequently overwhelming and overstimulating campus life is already an explosive mixture. To add more firearms to this would be a spark to a fire.
That many states restrict handgun ownership, and thus extensively CCW, to age 21 and over does pose a practical mitigation of this problem, though. As a onetime college student myself, I'm not at all certain how severe or immediate such a problem might be. Then too, college was in Arizona.
Yeeup, that's right, y'can go buy yer shawtgun AND yer booze when y'turn 21!
*slaps forehead*
Have any of you ever seen the cops have to take down a crazed student at school? I have. To be truthful I'm really glad that nobody involved or around had a gun.
Let's see... in college you have:
kids away from their parents (many for the first time)
students taking drugs and also selling drugs to other students
the pressure of tests / grades
mental problems developing or worsening (sometimes due to drugs)
And the solution is to add guns to all this?!?
Jebediah, have you ever considered you'd want a defense against all that you listed, should worse come to worst? Must you allow yourself to be murdered because you obeyed a rule that helps you die, or should you take some other path that helps you live?
You already know my thinking on the subject, and the qualms of those disagreeing with that are not sufficient to move me. Their thinking does not persuade someone of sufficient understanding.
Do keep in mind please that a gun out is not necessarily a gun fired, and that a gun fired is not necessarily going to end in a homicide of any description. Really, the civil context for use of deadly force is well worked out, and well understood by those who are proactive in defense of self and other.
...should worse come to worst?
I like your English.
I find it worrisome that people keep finding special cases where victim disarmament is needed. The basic argument on this one is that college students are too immature to possess a weapon. This is to be expected in a society which is killing off the remnants of individual responsibility. My Dad lived in a time and place where the rifle team could carry their arms on the school bus. We live in a world where adults can't be trusted to carry at all. Today, the police and criminals are armed to the teeth while honest citizens acknowlege their impotence in the face of violence. Personal responsibility, under attack from so many quarters, is on its way out.
I find the idea of universities being a place where people routinely go armed really difficult to get to grips with. Seems entirely incongruous to me.
I guess the argument is routine vs. special case. Routine would hopefully mean sensible and trained, but we all know the reality. Unfortunately, the special case includes only cops, nutters, and nutter cops. The pragmatist sees that guns don't belong in that environment but that means leaving people exposed. I'd rather the individual student make the call and irresponsible behavior, such as carrying drunk, be punished. We can create expectations for behavior or we can use force the control behavior, I'd prefer to see a creative use of expectations. The bottom line: I have no idea, we've got a diverse society where irresponsibility is often expected. The right thing and the reasonable thing can be in conflict especially considering long term vs. short term visions for society.
I find the idea of universities being a place where people routinely go armed really difficult to get to grips with. Seems entirely incongruous to me.
The entire notion of an armed citizenry would seem at best incongruous to most anyone not from this country and a fair number of folks in and from this country.
But even tho I advocate gun ownership, I don't think guns belong on state-run college campuses any more than they belong in other state-run institutions like the DMV or the office of state/local government. Private universities are a question I won't address without thinking about it some more. I don't think someone should be issued a permit to own a firearm unless they live on private property (rented or owned). Students in state schools living in the dorm should not be issued a permit unless they also live in that state and agree to store the gun at home. Commuting students who live off campus should not be denied a permit. And none of the students should be permitted to bring their guns on the campus. Virginia Tech notwithstanding. And I'm one person removed from at least three of the victims.
I support gun ownership but I also think its ok to have places where you aren't allowed to bring your weapon(s).
If the students want guns on campus, let them vote for it.
I'm not sure voting on other peoples rights is a good thing. *shrug*
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.
That is an interesting idea linking carrying to property, but since the roadways are state property couldn't that eliminate all off property carrying?
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.
If its a state college then its not your campus. Its state property just like any other state property. State property is "owned" by all the citizens of the state therefore all citizens should be given the right to choose. If you are not an out-of-state student then you also get a vote. If you are an out of state student then you have an obligation to obey the laws of that state without objecting since your decision to enter that state was voluntary.
And the phrase "who will never visit or be part of my college campus" has very little merit really since its a state good and any state citizen can use or not use it at his/her discretion at any time. And as a state asset, the rules concerning its use is a matter for the state to decide which flows through to the citzens thereof. That's what elections are for - pick the candidate who will craft (or uncraft) legislation that suits you.
We can't be deferring to arbitrary sub groups to write their own laws. That would produce horrificly negative consequences that, I think, you have yet to consider.
When you get guns allowed in the white house or an elementry school maybe I'll try to see your point.
You don't know the conditions of my college campus and what if guns prove to be more hurtful than helpful? But that doesn't matter does it?
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.
Well, pierce, I cannot teach you not to take counsel of your fears -- but I'd suggest that you not.
Meanwhile, I see no valid reason for me to take counsel of your fears either. I know how I'd behave, and how well I'd behave.
I like your English.
Thanks!
I find it worrisome that people keep finding special cases where victim disarmament is needed.
Worrisome indeed -- I find it maddening, actually. This sort of thing is almost always an exercise in intellectual dishonesty, ill-disguised prejudice, and hoplophobia unbecoming an adult. Such "special cases" must be viewed with deep suspicion, and most generally if not universally vetoed.
Today, the police and criminals are armed to the teeth while honest citizens acknowlege their impotence in the face of violence. Personal responsibility, under attack from so many quarters, is on its way out.
Not while such as we still breathe. We shall push it back.
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.
Jebediah, have you ever considered you'd want a defense against all that you listed, should worse come to worst? Must you allow yourself to be murdered because you obeyed a rule that helps you die, or should you take some other path that helps you live?
I've lived through plenty, tyvm. Even somebody trying to crack my skull open while I was asleep. For some strange reason I'm glad he didn't have a gun. How silly of me. Almost as silly as thinking a gun would have helped me in that case.
You're from CA, so I'd expect you remember or at least heard of the riots that took place at many campuses. What do you think would have happened if students were armed?
You already know my thinking on the subject, and the qualms of those disagreeing with that are not sufficient to move me. Their thinking does not persuade someone of sufficient understanding.
Wasn't under any illusion it would.
Do keep in mind please that a gun out is not necessarily a gun fired, and that a gun fired is not necessarily going to end in a homicide of any description. Really, the civil context for use of deadly force is well worked out, and well understood by those who are proactive in defense of self and other.
You're more than correct that a gun out is not necessarily a gun fired. I argue that college is a unique place full of pressures / stress and mostly young folk figuring out how to deal with all that stress. I've been witness to many a fight over various things and many a drug-sale and a few breakdowns. To me guns are not a good solution. Arm the campus police, arm the teachers, arm fucking robots for all I care - but not young adults under pressure.
Another semi-related question for you UG: have you been out and about and come across some angry mofo blasting their radio (I believe the atrocities are known as boom cars) loud enough to rattle loose parts while staring down whomever they see? It's rather common around this area. Would you be so bold as to tell one of those clowns to knock it off?
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.
Police, including campus police, have no legal obligation to actually protect you, no matter what is says on the side of their cars.
I wasn't talking about campus police. I've never really seen them doing anything useful.
Jebediah, do you happen to recall my ever mentioning a martial-arts background? What does the sensei tell his pupils about starting fights, provocations, and so on?
He tells 'em "Don't."
Your difficulty here, not so atypical of the 17-21y.o. set, is that you're mistaking me for an asshole when I'm merely stern and occasionally impatient. And on occasion, military, which has its effect too and grates upon the new and tender ego. This is yet well beyond what you've done.
So, being possessed of mature patience, I just laugh at the boomcar boys. They never get invited over for supper. I laugh louder when the boomcar also rattles and buzzes from poor equipment or blown speakers or the speakers loose in their mounts. I'm with you, though, on that those boys don't show any musical taste.
And if I should really require to serve up a cold dish of revenge, I can always find out for sure if they don't like bagpipes... :p
...or make new friends if they do.
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.I can agree for the social right of self-preservation but not to hold guns
S-a good thing my rights are none of your business.
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.
Jebediah, do you happen to recall my ever mentioning a martial-arts background? What does the sensei tell his pupils about starting fights, provocations, and so on?
No, sorry to dissapoint but I'm not printing out your every post and framing them on my wall - let alone reading all of them.
Your difficulty here, not so atypical of the 17-21y.o. set, is that you're mistaking me for an asshole when I'm merely stern and occasionally impatient. And on occasion, military, which has its effect too and grates upon the new and tender ego. This is yet well beyond what you've done.
I'm not in the 17-21 year old range. Why would you think so? I never considered you an asshole; rigid and disregarding of others in disagreement sure, but never an asshole.
So, being possessed of mature patience, I just laugh at the boomcar boys. They never get invited over for supper. I laugh louder when the boomcar also rattles and buzzes from poor equipment or blown speakers or the speakers loose in their mounts. I'm with you, though, on that those boys don't show any musical taste.
We're in agreement on their musical taste. What I was getting at is if you actually felt like it, would you tell them to knock it off? I've thought about it plenty of times and the thing that holds me back is you don't know who has a gun. Granted they could have a baseball bat instead, but it takes moderate effort to club somebody to death. My roundabout way of getting to to the point: suppose guns are on campus, will a similar oppression occur? How many people will bite their tongue about this or that because they MIGHT have a gun? Sure, they might have a gun anyway but currently you can be reasonably certain they don't.
I wasn't beating on you about that martial-arts question -- I simply had no idea whether this was something you knew about me or not.
In my personal experience, backed up by absolutely every time I go to a gun range, is that it's a psychological truth that when everyone is armed, everyone is also polite. They are, in fact, downright kindly to each other. This is really very pleasant. If I am any measure of average human psychology, this is not from fear of the other armed guys, but of the desire to keep them reassured.
It strikes me, as it has other philosophers, that the reasonable certainty the other fellow doesn't have a gun allows rudeness to crop up. A reasonable certainty that yes, he does, suppresses any urge to be rude, for the cost might be considerably too high, mightn't it?
Got to admit, I prefer good manners over bad. I'm willing to go to some lengths to get them.
The gun range is a subset of people who like to fire guns for sport or safety. No violent intentions there. I have the odd feeling your average thug doesn't go to the shooting range, though I could be wrong.
I'm imagining a return to the Wild West where things are settled by who draws their gun the quickest. Maybe it would create politeness but how much dissent would be squashed along with that? It's a balance and I don't like either extreme.
The idea of the right to own guns was to satisfy our biological need of self-preservation.
Really?
Cite.
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.
Again and again, it is not your place to decide for others what they need.
Man, you are a nosy busybody tyrant.
You seem to fail to realize that guns are a double edged sword. It can hurt society just as much as it can help. No one is trying to take away your need to stay alive, it just happens because their can be bigger consequences. It is like the Iran nuclear issue. They have every right to make nuclear energy because they will need it in 8 or so years but we are taking away their right to do it. Why, because we feel that they don’t have the right to make the best available energy source? No, because it is a double edged sword as well. They could possibly use the nuclear technology to make nuclear weapons, which we find unacceptable. The same concept applies to guns.
Guns are not like heroine, I can not just avoid guns like I can heroine. If someone takes heroine, I will never be killed from it. That is the point of the whole debate, what may be worse for the individual may be best for the community.
The idea that we made rights to satisfy our need of self-preservation is the only idea that makes sense. To say we were born with infinite rights not only does not make sense or backed by nature, can be taken out with Occam's razor. The universe is a nihilistic cage, nothing more; it does not give us anything. It is much easier to say that everyone has no rights but just survives than it is to say that everyone has infinite rights. If you get in a street fight to the death there is no one telling you that you can do anything, you just survive. Nature supports the theory of just surviving as well since we don’t see animals doing whatever they want.
Then once society was more or less created, rights came with it to explain our biological feelings and to keep order. That is the only option that makes sense, the idea of a nihilistic cage gives us infinite rights does not.
The idea that we made rights to satisfy our need of self-preservation is the only idea that makes sense
To you.
I grew-up on a ranch using guns, yes, handguns, every day. A few times to save my life.
That does not matter... it is still not your place.
Nature supports the theory of just surviving as well since we don’t see animals doing whatever they want.
They don't? They do unless something interferes with their right to do that.
And the phrase "who will never visit or be part of my college campus" has very little merit really since its a state good and any state citizen can use or not use it at his/her discretion at any time.
Tell that to my student loan holders. I think I actually still owe for CSU.
To you.
I grew-up on a ranch using guns, yes, handguns, every day. A few times to save my life.
That does not matter... it is still not your place.
I am not trying to take your guns away from your ranch or the general public, just my college campus. That is the only place I have been fighting to get guns banned on this thread, or on this entire board I think.
They don't? They do unless something interferes with their right to do that.
That is making it too complicated. You can just say that “you can do whatever you need to survive”. The only law of nature could be simplified too "the most adaptive will have their genes passed on". Every action in nature, besides humans and altruistic behavior, can be seen to follow this law. To bring rights into the mix just makes it more complicated, which goes against Occam's razor.
If you attack a lion's "right to self-preservation" it will fight back because that is the best option to ensure its survival (or at least its instinct tell it so, which has stood the test of time). On the other hand, a lion will never attack a cheetah to eliminate competition because by attacking the cheetah, it will put its survival chances at risk. Sure, it can attack the cheetah, nothing is holding it back, but it won’t because the lion follows that one rule.
In order to have rights, something has to give them to us. I have not seen any evidence that suggests that the universe is anything but nihilistic, so the only other options are a god or humans. The god option has no proof either, which brings us to humans. Is that a definite statement? No, if proof comes up that the universe is not nihilistic or there is a god my statement will be turned around, but until then that is what all available evidence points too.
It strikes me, as it has other philosophers, that the reasonable certainty the other fellow doesn't have a gun allows rudeness to crop up. A reasonable certainty that yes, he does, suppresses any urge to be rude, for the cost might be considerably too high, mightn't it?
Hmm. I don't know about that. For the most part, my country is quite a polite place to be. There're the usual problems of loitering teenagers, swearing and getting in peoples' faces, but on the whole we're a relatively polite society. Also on the whole, we don't expect people to be carrying firearms. There is a growing problem in some inner city communities, with gangs and guns, but its a tiny, tiny proportion of the population who'll ever have any real contact with guns, beyond the odd air rifle.
That is making it too complicated. You can just say that “you can do whatever you need to survive”. The only law of nature could be simplified too "the most adaptive will have their genes passed on". Every action in nature, besides humans and altruistic behavior, can be seen to follow this law. To bring rights into the mix just makes it more complicated, which goes against Occam's razor.
You are the one complicating matters. Animals do what they want unless/until something stops them. Very simple.
If you attack a lion's "right to self-preservation" it will fight back because that is the best option to ensure its survival (or at least its instinct tell it so, which has stood the test of time). On the other hand, a lion will never attack a cheetah to eliminate competition because by attacking the cheetah, it will put its survival chances at risk. Sure, it can attack the cheetah, nothing is holding it back, but it won’t because the lion follows that one rule.
The hell it won't. Lions will chase anything out of their territory on a whim. They can do what they want. So can the Cheetah unless the lion stops it. Very simple.
In order to have rights, something has to give them to us. I have not seen any evidence that suggests that the universe is anything but nihilistic, so the only other options are a god or humans. The god option has no proof either, which brings us to humans. Is that a definite statement? No, if proof comes up that the universe is not nihilistic or there is a god my statement will be turned around, but until then that is what all available evidence points too.
No one and nothing can give you rights, only take them away.
UG: Guns make people polite.
DanaC: Britain has no guns but is very polite.
Indeed, one of the outstanding things about Britain is its polite culture. It's as built-in to the people as America's individualist streak.
Within cultures there are traditions and teachings and approaches that give the people their basic make-up. What we were taught as children, we will teach our children, and they will teach their children. And this will determine who we are at the very root, and whether or not we will queue ("single file") for a bus or train or elevator.
Brits: Of course we will stand in a queue. We are British.
Americans: Of course we will bunch up at the entrance, fighting to get in, barely letting the departing people off. We are American.
So what UG is actually saying -- although he doesn't realize it -- is "Guns make the American people polite", quite a true statement.
.
Brits: Of course we will stand in a queue. We are British.
I just love how queue is spelled. 4 vowels, one consonant, 1 syllable. That has to be some kind of record.
You are the one complicating matters. Animals do what they want unless/until something stops them. Very simple.
You do not need rights for animals to do what they want unless something stops them. The idea of rights is what complicates it.
If you are in a fight to the death do you need someone to tell you that you can do whatever you want, you just do what you need to survive (or at least a smart person does and nature tends to have a way with dumb people in those situations).
The hell it won't. Lions will chase anything out of their territory on a whim. They can do what they want. So can the Cheetah unless the lion stops it. Very simple.
Why does the lion chase the other animals out of its territory? Because the lion has a territorial instinct passed down from its previous ancestor that also had it. The territorial instinct beat the non-territorial instinct in natural selection so instinct tells the lion that chasing the other animals out of its territory will ensure the passing of its genes on, which follows my rule.
For my initial example, I was talking about the lion leaving its territory to kill the cheetah to eliminate competition.
No one and nothing can give you rights, only take them away.
You can't just get rights from nothing. Something has to give them to us or they cease to exist. Everything has a source, something has to come from something else (there are exceptions but that has nothing to do with this).
The idea of infinite rights is the same thing as nothing. If you get in a fight where someone tells you everything is fair game and you get in a fight where no one tells you anything, it is the same fight; just the second is much simpler.
So what UG is actually saying -- although he doesn't realize it -- is "Guns make the American people polite", quite a true statement.
I don't completely agree with this and will hopefully build off it. While "Guns make the American people polite" does apply to many (most could possibly fit too) it does not apply to every sub-culture that is considered American.
UG's example, a gun range, is only one sub-culture of America and his example is very true for that sub-culture.
If you go to other sub-cultures, such as gangs, you will see the opposite.
Maybe it isn't being "American" or "British" that makes someone polite with guns or no guns but how they react to the power they get from guns. The people that go to gun ranges have been taught to react differently to the power of guns opposed to the people that join gangs. The people that go to ranges see guns as something greater than just a tool, but as a symbol of peace and/or respect. The people that join gangs see guns as a tool to enforce their lust for power.
In the hands of one sub-culture, guns can and will make society safer, but in the hands of the other sub-culture, it makes society much more dangerous. I will also assume that these sub-cultures or trains of thought are not just limited to America, but the entire human race.
That is well and rightly said, pierce.
Though I think it would be less the "society" than the individuals within it -- and their individual choices how to behave.
Hmm. I don't know about that. For the most part, my country is quite a polite place to be. There're the usual problems of loitering teenagers, swearing and getting in peoples' faces, but on the whole we're a relatively polite society. Also on the whole, we don't expect people to be carrying firearms.
This does go a ways to illustrate my point. Consider also the exquisite manners of military aristocracies, worldwide. I don't think it's a coincidence that careful good manners are practiced by those who are among other things professional killers.
Guns are not like heroine*, I can not just avoid guns like I can heroine. If someone takes heroine, I will never be killed from it. That is the point of the whole debate, what may be worse for the individual may be best for the community.
If you do not attempt to assault, rape, or murder me, you won't be harmed by my gun.
Just as in your heroin example, you make the choice not to engage in the risk-taking behavior. Actually, it goes beyond that. You
are ultimately harmed by the guy doing heroin. It's your money that's going to send him to rehab, and your stuff that he's stealing (even if indirectly by an increase in your taxes to pay for the police to deal with the crime related to his drug use).
_____
* Note: There is no "e" in heroin. Putting one there makes me nuts.
If you are in a fight to the death do you need someone to tell you that you can do whatever you want, you just do what you need to survive (or at least a smart person does and nature tends to have a way with dumb people in those situations).
Thats it!
You don't need some one to tell you. You finally got it! Your (they're) rights are natural, given by no one.
Why does the lion chase the other animals out of its territory? Because the lion has a territorial instinct passed down from its previous ancestor that also had it. The territorial instinct beat the non-territorial instinct in natural selection so instinct tells the lion that chasing the other animals out of its territory will ensure the passing of its genes on, which follows my rule.
For my initial example, I was talking about the lion leaving its territory to kill the cheetah to eliminate competition.
See how complicated you're trying to make everything? The Lion does it because nobody/nothing is impinging on his right to do what ever the hell he wants. Simple.
You can't just get rights from nothing. Something has to give them to us or they cease to exist. Everything has a source, something has to come from something else (there are exceptions but that has nothing to do with this).
Oh, I see... you wish to violate my rights by limiting acceptable examples. I don't think so.
The idea of infinite rights is the same thing as nothing. If you get in a fight where someone tells you everything is fair game and you get in a fight where no one tells you anything, it is the same fight; just the second is much simpler.
Exactly... you're catching on now.... the second,
nobody tells you what your rights are, is much simpler.
If you get into a fight and willingly allow someone to interfere with your right to do what you want, you're a damn fool.
I am not trying to take your guns away from your ranch or the general public, just my college campus. That is the only place I have been fighting to get guns banned on this thread, or on this entire board I think.
That is making it too complicated. You can just say that “you can do whatever you need to survive”. The only law of nature could be simplified too "the most adaptive will have their genes passed on". Every action in nature, besides humans and altruistic behavior, can be seen to follow this law. To bring rights into the mix just makes it more complicated, which goes against Occam's razor.
If you attack a lion's "right to self-preservation" it will fight back because that is the best option to ensure its survival (or at least its instinct tell it so, which has stood the test of time). On the other hand, a lion will never attack a cheetah to eliminate competition because by attacking the cheetah, it will put its survival chances at risk. Sure, it can attack the cheetah, nothing is holding it back, but it won’t because the lion follows that one rule.
In order to have rights, something has to give them to us. I have not seen any evidence that suggests that the universe is anything but nihilistic, so the only other options are a god or humans. The god option has no proof either, which brings us to humans. Is that a definite statement? No, if proof comes up that the universe is not nihilistic or there is a god my statement will be turned around, but until then that is what all available evidence points too.
Riiiiggght... not having guns has never killed anyone on a campus, oh... wait.
No one gives me shit, my rights are my own.
There is no god.
* Note: There is no "e" in heroin. Putting one there makes me nuts.
Methinks heroine is more dangerous than heroin.
How very true!!
The Female of the Species - Rudyard Kipling
WHEN the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside.
But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
When Nag the basking cobra hears the careless foot of man,
He will sometimes wriggle sideways and avoid it if he can.
But his mate makes no such motion where she camps beside the trail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws.
'Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
Man's timid heart is bursting with the things he must not say,
For the Woman that God gave him isn't his to give away;
But when hunter meets with husbands, each confirms the other's tale—
The female of the species is more deadly than the male.
Man, a bear in most relations—worm and savage otherwise,—
Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise.
Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact
To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.
Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low,
To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe.
Mirth obscene diverts his anger—Doubt and Pity oft perplex
Him in dealing with an issue—to the scandal of The Sex!
But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame
Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same;
And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,
The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.
She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast
May not deal in doubt or pity—must not swerve for fact or jest.
These be purely male diversions—not in these her honour dwells—
She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.
She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate.
And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim
Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.
She is wedded to convictions—in default of grosser ties;
Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies!—
He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild,
Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.
Unprovoked and awful charges—even so the she-bear fights,
Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisons—even so the cobra bites,
Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw
And the victim writhes in anguish—like the Jesuit with the squaw!
So it comes that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer
With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her
Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands
To some God of Abstract Justice—which no woman understands.
And Man knows it! Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him
Must command but may not govern—shall enthral but not enslave him.
And She knows, because She warns him, and Her instincts never fail,
That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male.
If you do not attempt to assault, rape, or murder me, you won't be harmed by my gun.
Yes, but you do not speak for everyone that owns a gun. Other people use to enforce their lust for power.
xoxoxobruce - I think you are misunderstanding my analogy. Of course no one has to tell you what you can and can not do, but you do not need rights to do whatever you want. Rights are just superfluous, why I say it is more complicated, and the only thing I can see them being there is for justification.
rkzenrage - Would you still want guns on campus if 20 people were dying a year from them but only 1 person a year was being saved from them? This is assuming we had definite proof.
I did not say I wanted guns on campus. I said adult students have the same rights everyone else has.
No one should take that away from them. No one.
I had my gun with me the whole time I was on campus, (my apt was on college property).
I was working in a job where a concealed weapon was required the whole time I was a student the last three years of my college career. I never knew when I would have to go straight to work from a performance, audition or rehearsal.
xoxoxobruce - I think you are misunderstanding my analogy. Of course no one has to tell you what you can and can not do, but you do not need rights to do whatever you want. Rights are just superfluous, why I say it is more complicated, and the only thing I can see them being there is for justification.
Of course they are justification, they are the reason I can do what I wish.
That said, that doesn't release me from the responsibility of considering, and not infringing on, other peoples rights.
If I didn't have the right to do what I wish, there would be no reason for laws to tell me I can't, they would just not tell me I could.
Yes, that is why I believe rights are human made. Only one species on the entire planet needs or has the intelligence to justify its actions, and that is us. If we are the only species that need rights to justify ourselves, how can they be anything but human made? The universe is not made for humans so we didn't discover them, we had to make them ourselves.
I am not against the idea of rights either by the way.
Just because humans have the ability to explain their rights, to reason how they apply, doesn't mean animals... uh, the other animals, don't have them too.
Actually it's not rights, it's right, just one.... to do what they wish. No one gives it to them, they're born with it.
We both have the same conclusion, just different ways of wording it.
That right is still a justification and the universe doesn't use justifications. In the human eyes, we are born with natural rights but in the universe's eyes, we don't have any.
Laws don't tell you what to do, only what not to do. If you have no natural right to do what you want, then you must do what I tell you to do. Now rub your belly and pat your head.
In our opinion we have rights because we need some sort of justification for control. I acknowledge the fact that we need rights for society to run but it is solely a human creation so societies can run smoothly. Rights had to come along with laws, it is a package deal. It is the same way with class. If you join a monetary society, class will naturally come with it. If you abolish money you will also abolish class. If you abolish laws you will abolish rights naturally because they are unneeded and Occam’s razor will take them out.
In other words, rights are just serving as a counterweight to laws. Once you get rid of laws (I am against that), then rights will no longer have a purpose.
Our? Who's our?
You are trying to convince me that the cave men, having no laws, had no rights. Nonsense, they all had the right to do what they wanted. They were born with that right, as is everyone before and since.
All laws, all rules, all customs, are an infringement on that right to do what you wish, in an attempt to create cohesive society.
Once again, what is the difference between a caveman with infinite rights and a caveman that just survives? There is no difference so why would the universe make an idea of rights if they are unneeded? So, I am saying that the idea of rights were likely made as a counterweight to laws.
If rights are a justification and humans are the sole species that need to justify their actions, humans are the only ones that could make up the idea of rights. Not the universe but humans.
What would happen if someone was born without rights? Its impossible to imagine because it is impossible to do. You can take away any other universal law (theoritically) but not rights. If it is impossible to take away rights what is the point of reconizing them in the first place? It is just an added piece of information that is not needed, which goes against the will of the universe.
By the way, I will be gone for the next few days so don't expect an immediate answer.
Once again, what is the difference between a caveman with infinite rights and a caveman that just survives? There is no difference so why would the universe make an idea of rights if they are unneeded? So, I am saying that the idea of rights were likely made as a counterweight to laws.
Rights are not sandwiches, nobody makes them, not even the "universe". Every critter is born with them.
If rights are a justification and humans are the sole species that need to justify their actions, humans are the only ones that could make up the idea of rights. Not the universe but humans.
Were you not paying attention when I said, "Just because humans have the ability to explain their rights, to reason how they apply, doesn't mean animals... uh, the other animals, don't have them too."
We don't need them to justify out actions, although we can, it's not necessary.
Rights aren't a reaction to laws... laws are are a reaction to rights. If people didn't have rights there would be no laws, because people would just have to do what they were told.
What would happen if someone was born without rights? Its impossible to imagine because it is impossible to do.
Yes! Now you've got it.
You can take away any other universal law (theoritically) but not rights. If it is impossible to take away rights what is the point of reconizing them in the first place?
The point is, you're not the boss of me... and vice versa.
It is just an added piece of information that is not needed, which goes against the will of the universe.
C'mon, don't be silly, the "universe" has no will.
Not needed? Without it there would be no truths to hold self evident.
Rights are not sandwiches, nobody makes them, not even the "universe". Every critter is born with them.
How can you be born with something that can not be made? Rights are ideas, which have to be made by something.
Were you not paying attention when I said, "Just because humans have the ability to explain their rights, to reason how they apply, doesn't mean animals... uh, the other animals, don't have them too."
We don't need them to justify out actions, although we can, it's not necessary.
Rights aren't a reaction to laws... laws are a reaction to rights. If people didn't have rights there would be no laws, because people would just have to do what they were told.
What you are saying is contradictory to what I just said. I said it was impossible to be born without rights and now you are saying it is possible. Do you need a right to do what you are told or not? Either way, if no one tells you what to do then you don't need rights and the idea of rights can still be considered reactionary to power. This is turning into a "what came first, chicken or the egg" argument...
What you are saying is that someone born without rights would be born without free will, more or less. Is this what you are trying to say or not?
C'mon, don't be silly, the "universe" has no will.
Okay, I used the wrong word. Supports may fit better.
Not needed? Without it there would be no truths to hold self evident.
I was talking about rights without society or anyone telling you what to do. There is no difference from infinite rights and survival so in that situation rights are not needed. Once a society forms, then the idea of rights are needed.
What you are saying is contradictory to what I just said.
That's right.
Our? Who's our?
All laws, all rules, all customs, are an infringement on that right to do what you wish, in an attempt to create cohesive society.
Your definition of "rights" is sort of useless. If all laws are an infringement, we get back to subjective judgement calls as to whether the benefit outweighs the violation. I suspect that piercehawkeye45 considers a "right" to be an aspect of your [universal right to do as you wish] that no benefit outweighs.
This type of right, which is the more common understanding of the word, is invented by humans, and based on culture.
"That no benefit outweighs"?... that depends on who's calling the shots, which is usually the ones making and enforcing the laws. You can bet it will be what's most beneficial to them.
That's why I claim they don't determine my rights with their laws, only infringe on them. I will never accept my rights are "everything else", after they have imposed their will.
"which is the more common understanding of the word", maybe in your world, but not where I come from, buddy.
"That no benefit outweighs"?... that depends on who's calling the shots, which is usually the ones making and enforcing the laws.
How you can exercise your rights always depends on who's calling the shots. But what you consider to be a right depends on you, and is largely based on culture. Your definition is nice, but ultimately useless. If both "stop at the red light" and "don't murder" are infringements of your rights, then "rights" are too abstract to be meaningful. You can't make a case against a law as infringing, because that's a given.
On the other hand, if you view a right as "something that no law ought to prevent me from doing", you can actually use the word in a useful way, as in "You should not ban handguns because of the right to keep and bear arms."
My rights aren't based on culture, everyone is born with them.
How in hell do infringements make my rights "too abstract to be meaningful"? That's nonsense, it makes my rights more meaningful, and more important.
I certainly can make a case against a law as infringing... "because that's a given", strengthens my case because I don't have to prove it is an infringement.
It sounds like your saying, save the argument of infringing on my rights, for important fights. Horseshit, every law, every rule, every custom, should be questioned on a regular basis. Anything outmoded, or redundant should be eliminated. There should be no laws without a current legitimate purpose and any that are not clearly so, should be questioned.
In a further development,
America's 1st Freedom magazine notes that Texas Governor Rick Perry and some legislators are considering repealing a state law prohibiting possession of firearms on college campuses.
Article Here