Login    Register
User Information
Username:
Password:
We are a free and open
community, all are welcome.
Click here to Register
Sponsored
Who is online

In total there are 76 users online :: 3 registered, 1 hidden and 72 guests


Most users ever online was 155 on Mon Aug 15, 2016 1:40 am

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] based on users active over the past 5 minutes

The Team
Administrators
Global Moderators
global_moderators.png CS

Concealed Carry on Campus

All non-spudgun related discussion goes here such as projects, theories, serious questions, etc. All "off-topic" posts (aka useless posting, determined by moderators) will be removed.
Sponsored 

READ POST BEFORE VOTING! Do you favor allow licensed, responsible college students 21 and over to carry a weapon on campus?

Yes - I think it's a good idea.
42
75%
No - I think it's a bad idea.
14
25%
 
Total votes : 56
  • Author
    Message

Unread postAuthor: SPG » Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:42 pm

You see, I was giving an opinion, not stating facts, and I believe we're all allowed to give opinions. Also I was giving an opinion on college students having guns on campus, not on you as an individual.

So you may be able to lock your gun in your car, but what about the college student without a car? Where will they lock their gun if they're taking a shower? It's easy for you to practice safe gun storgae because you have the facilities, but what about those who don't?

You say you've had no training at all, but you lived in Alaska?
Perhaps this is a newer statute than when you lived there?

Sec. 18.65.715. Demonstration of competence with handguns.

(a) An applicant for a permit to carry a concealed handgun shall provide a certificate of successful completion of a handgun course that is approved by the department. The certificate must state the action type and caliber of handgun or handguns the applicant has demonstrated competence with and that the applicant may be permitted to carry. A permittee may only carry as a concealed handgun an action type of handgun described in the certificate. A permittee may only carry as a concealed handgun the caliber of the action type that the permittee demonstrated competence with or any lesser caliber of the same action type. The handgun course must have been completed within the 12 months immediately preceding the application. The department shall approve a handgun course, including the personal protection course offered by the National Rifle Association, if the course tests the applicant's

(1) knowledge of Alaska law relating to firearms and the use of deadly force;

(2) familiarity with the basic concepts of the safe and responsible use of handguns;

(3) knowledge of self-defense principles;


But you're right, I do live in a different country, one where there are some restrictions on gun purchase and ownership, rifles and pistols defined as being of "military calibre" for instance, need a difficult to get permit before you're allowed one. But we can have handguns, semi-autos, shotguns and hunting rifles to our heart's content, yes we need a permit but they're not impossible to get if you carry out the right procedure, which varies depending on the type of firearm. For instance the double short-barrelled, pistol gripped, folding stocked 40mm "home-protection" weapon I own, only had to have a notification sent to the police that I had purchased it.

Roughly 48% of US house-holds have guns, as opposed to 22% in France. Gun homicide rates vary widely too, you guys tend to shoot each other more, we tend to have another glass of wine instead.

Concealed carry however is a complete no no.

Hope that provides some info, without the insults.
  • 0

<A HREF="http://www.paisleypeking.co.uk"><IMG BORDER="0" WIDTH="400" HEIGHT="64" SRC="http://www.paisleypeking.co.uk/images/signature.gif"></A>
User avatar
SPG
Major
Major
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 11:55 am
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: paaiyan » Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:44 pm

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:
Ragnarok wrote:I can't see we need to get hot under the collar here. This discussion can be settled in a calm manner. We'll get a lot further if we're polite to each other.


You see the point, if we were all in a room having this discussion with the knowledge that people might or might not have a concealed pistol on their person, the discussion would remain civilised :D


Yea, who wants to piss off the guy that might have a gun? Do you have any idea how many fewer confrontations we'd have if everyone always assumed the other guy had a gun?
  • 0

"Who ever said the pen was mightier than the sword, obviously, never encountered automatic weapons."
-General Douglass MacArthur

Read my dog's blog - Life of Kilo
User avatar
paaiyan
Major General
Major General
 
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 10:03 pm
Location: Central Oklahoma
Country: United States (us)
Reputation: 1

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:47 pm

A gun is an equaliser, enough said. Ask Indy :D

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DzcOCyHDqc[/youtube]
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Unread postAuthor: paaiyan » Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:49 pm

I love that clip. Originally, he was supposed to pull out his whip and take the guy out, but he'd been rather sick for a while and was very weak. He had the idea right before the scene was shot to just pull out the pistol and shoot him, so they decided to go with that instead.
  • 0

"Who ever said the pen was mightier than the sword, obviously, never encountered automatic weapons."
-General Douglass MacArthur

Read my dog's blog - Life of Kilo
User avatar
paaiyan
Major General
Major General
 
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 10:03 pm
Location: Central Oklahoma
Country: United States (us)
Reputation: 1

Unread postAuthor: Ragnarok » Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:24 pm

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:You see the point, if we were all in a room having this discussion with the knowledge that people might or might not have a concealed pistol on their person, the discussion would remain civilised :D

Control through fear is a mark of totalitarian dictatorship, not a democracy. The gun is not there to depress free speech.

Discussion is best regulated by respect for your fellow man, which carrying a gun doesn't really promote.
And regardless of whether it's intended in a humourous manner, playing on the concept that you'd remain civilised in case someone should draw a weapon in anger doesn't exactly support this thread's concept.

But, that's a point we shall move on from, lest I cause friction.

That Indiana Jones scene is one of my favourites of all time, although the films' depiction of firearms is often more related to humour than reality.
It has to be said, I'm so going to see the new one when it comes out:
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=lPTJ4v6KPrg [/youtube]

It's sort of traditional that given enough sequels, a concept will become overworked, but Ford is a great actor, and frankly, whatever happens it can't be worse than the rather poor "Temple of Doom".

You know, for someone who's turning 66 this year, it's a little surprising that Harrison Ford can still play what is essentially a romantic lead. He certainly doesn't look nearly that old though.
  • 0

Does that thing kinda look like a big cat to you?
User avatar
Ragnarok
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5339
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:23 am
Location: The UK
Reputation: 8

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:39 pm

Ragnarok wrote:Control through fear is a mark of totalitarian dictatorship, not a democracy.


Which is why our great Western "democracies" make such a big deal about the "war on terror", so much for the right to vote.

The gun is not there to depress free speech.


In that scenario, I'm not giving the gun to one man that he may suppress the opinions of others. I'm giving a gun to everyone - as an equaliser - as a source of mutual respect. It sounds quite mad but on a larger scale, this is what has prevented total global conflict for half a century.
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Unread postAuthor: Ragnarok » Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:47 pm

The principle of MAD relied on the several minute transit time of the warheads. The transit time of a bullet at short ranges is milliseconds, far too short for a response.

Mutual respect is more to me about trusting people not to have any intent to blow your head off (and thus not carrying a means to do so), not having the means that you could retaliate and blow theirs off as well.
In other words, I respect the principles of honesty and trust more than power.

Anyway, what we really have here is one person with a gun, ready to kill people that speak out of turn - and he's called MrCrowley. :D
  • 0

Does that thing kinda look like a big cat to you?
User avatar
Ragnarok
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5339
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:23 am
Location: The UK
Reputation: 8

Sponsored

Sponsor
 


Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:52 pm

Noble words, but in the face of a gun they're about effective as waving a big shiny prop scimitar around - in that situation, I'd rather the gun was in my hand.
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Unread postAuthor: ShowNoMercy » Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:52 pm

I think for the USA at least, its not the ability to own a gun but rather the principle behind it. For instance if everywhere in the world, say pens were illegal but in the US they were legal and furthermore a right to own, then foreigners wouldn't understand why Americans would obsess over pens when a pencil does the same job. So for non Americans to judge us, it is kind of a hard viewpoint to understand. Guns for me are a right to own and bear, however there still is a responsibility to owning one. Foreigners have a hard time with that.
  • 0

Jesus saves, no need to pray
The gates of pearl have turned to gold
It seems you've lost your way
User avatar
ShowNoMercy
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:08 am
Location: Jersey Bitches!
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: markieclarkie » Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:00 pm

I used to be totally against handguns of any type because, as the Lenord Skynard song so eloquently states,"Are for killin' people.aint' no good for nothin' else."( I'm a spudder cause although they ain't toys, they're for fun!Not hurting people!) But.. as the number of campus and school shootings(on top of everything else!!) continues to rise at an alarming rate, I think you guys are right, and I reluctantly concede. Anyone who is willing to. obtain the proper permits, go through the training and pass the psychological profile should be allowed to carry. 2nd amendment after all.
  • 0


markieclarkie
Specialist
Specialist
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 5:12 pm
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: Ragnarok » Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:36 pm

Here's an interesting thought.
Guns are available illegally in any country. If someone wants one, they can get one. It's a common argument against gun control.
However, where guns are legal, you are very likely to get more instances of gun related murders, whether with a legal or illegal weapon.

Now, here's a proposal. It is a part of a culture that both increases the murder rate, and also makes it hard to enforce gun control.

So legality of guns and a relatively high murder rate are both effects of a cultural mindset, rather than the legality being the cause.
This collective thinking, which on it's own helps legalise guns, when guns are available begins to form strong links with firearms, creating a familiarity that makes such firearms common for murders - and in some cases, mass shootings.

So it's not the guns themselves that cause the problem in such countries, but the fact that the people are so attached to their guns. Countries where guns can or have been legalised didn't have such a mindset, and the murder rate was primarily lower.

What do people think of that idea?
  • 0

Does that thing kinda look like a big cat to you?
User avatar
Ragnarok
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5339
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:23 am
Location: The UK
Reputation: 8

Unread postAuthor: markieclarkie » Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:57 pm

SOO True dude. But in this country, The 2nd amendment is sacred. Also, in a place like,say, asscrackistan, Whaddah ya gonna do? Suddenly take away a guys (VERY REAL) ability to defend himself/family? Education & RESPONSIBILITY are the only long term solutions.
  • 0


markieclarkie
Specialist
Specialist
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 5:12 pm
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: Ragnarok » Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:16 pm

I think that in any society where there is a strong mental link with arms, regardless of how much education you give out, you're going to get a few weirdos that associate with them in the wrong way.

In an ideal world, you would make it as hard as possible for nutcases to get guns, however, unless there are rigorous enough checks, which would need to be repeated every few years, it's going to be very hard to minimise such people from acquiring firearms through legal suppliers.

I'm not just talking for concealed arms - this would have to be in force for any and all varieties of arms, especially handguns.

You'd need enough people to consent to those tougher and better enforced licensing laws (if not actual restrictions on what arms were available) to get them into place, and from what I've seen in this thread alone, that would be very hard to do.

The other issue is that with all the already privately owned guns in America, you'd have one hard time getting all owners to get themselves legally registered.
  • 0

Does that thing kinda look like a big cat to you?
User avatar
Ragnarok
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5339
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 8:23 am
Location: The UK
Reputation: 8

Unread postAuthor: markieclarkie » Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:25 pm

Just about any (If not all )Law enforcement professional(s) would agree. So do I.
  • 0


markieclarkie
Specialist
Specialist
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 5:12 pm
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: starman » Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:40 pm

Davidvaini wrote:
A a r o n wrote:
Let me know what you think


And you're voting for Obama?


:laughing5: :laughing5: :laughing5: :laughing5: :laughing5: :laughing5:


Yes, I know he's an anti-gun candidate, but...

I disagree 100% with John McCain and the Republicans. The GOP has taken this country so far south I'm not sure we'll ever be the same.

Peace,
Pete Zaria.


Exactly how has the GOP taken this country "south" and what do you mean by "not sure we'll ever be the same"...being the same as what? I've lived through several presidencies and personally find life these days to be just as good or better than it's ever been. I'm extremely proud and thankful to be an American.

Obviously you don't disagree 100% with McCain if you're against gun control. Also, can you name just one thing, one accomplishment, one anything that recommends Obama to be the next prez?
  • 0

Last edited by starman on Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
starman
Donating Moderator
Donating Moderator
 
Posts: 3041
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:45 am
Location: Simpsonville, SC
Reputation: 0

PreviousNext

Return to Non-Spudgun Related Discussion

Who is online

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot]

Reputation System ©'