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 42 users online :: 3 registered, 0 hidden and 39 guests


Most users ever online was 218 on Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:58 pm

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: BigGrib » Fri Feb 22, 2008 1:03 pm

Ragnarok wrote:
BigGrib wrote:I can however make the conscience decision to aim not to take like but to stop that person in his tracks.

Not as much as TV pretends.

Unfortunately, the common theories of "shooting them in the leg" or such like can still be lethal. If you shoot someone, no matter how you do it, you have to accept there is no way to completely avoid the risks:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... FleshWound


This is true, but when you make the decision to shoot someone, which is a big one, it is better to go for a limb rather than a body shot, and even though there is some risk of hitting one of the major arteries, just shooting at a person will usually deter them from continuing doing what they are doing. Hell even just getting a gun pulled on you is enough to make you stop dead in your tracks.
  • 0

Yea, that's definitely going to get you at least a tazer.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkMkGOpAF4s">DONT TAZE ME BRO.. DONT TAZE ME... AHHHH</a>
facebook.com/biggrib
User avatar
BigGrib
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 652
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:43 pm
Location: TriCities, WA
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: goathunter » Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:02 pm

And I'd insist that there are some things which are designed to be used as a weapon, that is their primary purpose, and in this category I'd put some guns, some swords, some knives etc. I wouldn't put a hammer in that category as it's primary purpose and design remit isn't for use as a weapon.


Well I sure would put a hammer in the category of weapon.Before the advent of firearms, hammers proved quite effective at killing people.If Ug the caveman and knight "so and so" can both agree hammers work well killing people then I can just about assure you they still do.Go ahead and hit a board with the claw of a hammer,you'll see what I mean.
  • 0

"Some people wonder all their lives if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem"-Ronald Reagan

"KA BLAAM! Elimination! Lack of education."-Big Mama, Fox and the Hound, Disney

goathunter
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:20 pm
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:08 pm

goathunter wrote:Well I sure would put a hammer in the category of weapon.Before the advent of firearms, hammers proved quite effective at killing people.If Ug the caveman and knight "so and so" can both agree hammers work well killing people then I can just about assure you they still do.Go ahead and hit a board with the claw of a hammer,you'll see what I mean.


I keep a 2 foot crowbar under my seat in the car, and it's not for serving drinks to members of the corvus family ;)
  • 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: SPG » Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:08 pm

We might ask about the reason for purchase though.... few people purchase hammers for self-defence (baseball bats yes, hammers no).

Mind you there's nothing against the concealed carrying of hammers as far as I know.

:wink:
  • 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: jackssmirkingrevenge » Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:10 pm

SPG wrote:Mind you there's nothing against the concealed carrying of hammers as far as I know.


Since they can kill a person with one blow, shouldn't there be? Why else would you carry a hammer with you? In case you spot a nail sticking out of a fence while walking down the street?

:roll: :D
  • 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: uberlad » Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:05 am

paaiyan wrote:
uberlad wrote:
jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:
A gun is NOT a tool, it is a weapon, a device designed to kill. An example of a tool is a hammer, which, yes, could kill if used in the wrong manner, but its primary function is to bang nails into wood.


I disagree, a weapon is defined by its use. A pistol used to bang a nail into wood is a tool. A pencil used to stab someone is a weapon. By definition, a gun is not a weapon until you use to harm someone.


True, anything can become a weapon if used in the wrong manner, as I tried to imply in my post ("a hammer, which, yes, could kill if used in the wrong manner"), but a gun is still a device designed to kill, and I think this should not be taken lightly. When you own, or carry a gun, you are pretty much saying
"I am prepared to harm somebody else."


Not exactly. If I carry a gun, what I'm really saying is, "I'm prepared to hurt someone else, lest harm come to me first."


But you are stil prepared to cause bodily harm to another, and having good intentions of self defense does not nullify that.

goathunter wrote:
And I'd insist that there are some things which are designed to be used as a weapon, that is their primary purpose, and in this category I'd put some guns, some swords, some knives etc. I wouldn't put a hammer in that category as it's primary purpose and design remit isn't for use as a weapon.


Well I sure would put a hammer in the category of weapon.Before the advent of firearms, hammers proved quite effective at killing people.If Ug the caveman and knight "so and so" can both agree hammers work well killing people then I can just about assure you they still do.Go ahead and hit a board with the claw of a hammer,you'll see what I mean.


The fact that something has the physical capability to be misused as a melee weapon does not call for the classification of weapon.
A battery could be put in a sock and swung as a weapon, so does this make a sock a weapon too?
____________
/_/ /_/\_)
  • 0

AY, LADS, BEVS ON ME!!!
LADSY!!!
User avatar
uberlad
Specialist
Specialist
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:46 am
Location: australia (the place with all the kangaroos)
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: MrCrowley » Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:09 am

uberlad wrote:But you are stil prepared to cause bodily harm to another, and having good intentions of self defense does not nullify that.

I live my life prepared to cause bodily harm to another if the situation requires it. I'm not going to standby as I get mugged by someone if they don't have a decent weapon. (knife, gun, baseball etc)

I'm sure if someone raided the place you work (or school) with a gun shooting the place up, you'd wish you had a gun. What Pete and others, are trying to get across is that they want to be preapred for this situation, not left helpless.

The fact that something has the physical capability to be misused as a melee weapon does not call for the classification of weapon.
A battery could be put in a sock and swung as a weapon, so does this make a sock a weapon too?


Just look at the laws the Aussie's have to abide too, that's pretty much how weapons are classified there if I recall correctly.

No, it makes a battery in a sock a weapon. You're not thinking logically, anything can be a weapon, if used that way.

The way you're thinking is like saying a clothesline is a weapon because you could whip someone with it, you need to realise if you whip someone with a clothesline, that clothesline will be treated as a weapon.
  • 0

User avatar
MrCrowley
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10207
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:42 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Country: New Zealand (nz)
Reputation: 4

Sponsored

Sponsor
 


Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:18 am

uberlad wrote:But you are stil prepared to cause bodily harm to another, and having good intentions of self defense does not nullify that.


If you're capable of walking then you're capable ouf causing bodily harm, are you suggesting some sort of though police a la Minority Report?

Look what tops the list of greatest ever weapons ;)

A battery could be put in a sock and swung as a weapon, so does this make a sock a weapon too?


If use it to hit someone, yes.
  • 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: uberlad » Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:21 am

MrCrowley wrote:
uberlad wrote:But you are stil prepared to cause bodily harm to another, and having good intentions of self defense does not nullify that.

I live my life prepared to cause bodily harm to another if the situation requires it. I'm not going to standby as I get mugged by someone if they don't have a decent weapon. (knife, gun, baseball etc)

I'm sure if someone raided the place you work (or school) with a gun shooting the place up, you'd wish you had a gun. What they're trying to get across is that they want to be preapred for this situation, not left helpless.


But if everyone is carrying a gun to prevent what is a very unlikely situation anyway (according to Rag's stats) then surely the chance of an accidental shooting happening will go up. Raising the chance of death/injury in order to have an opportunity to prevent an unlikely situation just doesn't sound all that practical to me.

_________________
/_/ /_
  • 0

AY, LADS, BEVS ON ME!!!
LADSY!!!
User avatar
uberlad
Specialist
Specialist
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:46 am
Location: australia (the place with all the kangaroos)
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: Hubb » Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:25 am

uberlad wrote:But you are stil prepared to cause bodily harm to another, and having good intentions of self defense does not nullify that.


The statement is true, to an extent. The purpose of carrying a concealed weapon, or any weapon for that matter (of course by a reasonable person) is to STOP A THREAT, not to cause bodily harm to another. If a person gets hurt while you are trying to stop them from hurting or killing someone, then so be it. But, remember, the threat will more than likely stop.
  • 0

User avatar
Hubb
Major General
Major General
 
Posts: 2390
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 8:39 am
Location: South Georgia
Reputation: 2

Unread postAuthor: MrCrowley » Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:28 am

uberlad wrote:
MrCrowley wrote:
uberlad wrote:But you are stil prepared to cause bodily harm to another, and having good intentions of self defense does not nullify that.

I live my life prepared to cause bodily harm to another if the situation requires it. I'm not going to standby as I get mugged by someone if they don't have a decent weapon. (knife, gun, baseball etc)

I'm sure if someone raided the place you work (or school) with a gun shooting the place up, you'd wish you had a gun. What they're trying to get across is that they want to be prepared for this situation, not left helpless.


But if everyone is carrying a gun to prevent what is a very unlikely situation anyway (according to Rag's stats) then surely the chance of an accidental shooting happening will go up. Raising the chance of death/injury in order to have an opportunity to prevent an unlikely situation just doesn't sound all that practical to me.

_________________
/_/ /_


This isn't a petition to let everyone carry firearms, it's a petition to let people who already carry concealed firearms, carry them on school campus. Sure more chance of an accidental death by firearm, but it would be a very, very small number indeed.
  • 0

User avatar
MrCrowley
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10207
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:42 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Country: New Zealand (nz)
Reputation: 4

Unread postAuthor: Pete Zaria » Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:36 am

MrCrowley wrote:This isn't a petition to let everyone carry firearms, it's a petition to let people who already carry concealed firearms, carry them on school campus. Sure more chance of an accidental death by firearm, but it would be a very, very small number indeed.


Well said, MrCrowley.

And as I said earlier, do you really think the very small increased chance of "random acts of violence" and the VERY small chance of negligent discharges outweighs the benefits of letting students protect themselves?

To those that said they "don't trust most people with guns", etc...
That's my point. Neither do I. But they already have them. So I'll keep mine close by. It's the only effective defense. The "bad guys" already have guns (80 million firearms in the USA, less than 40 million registered). Police can't protect you. Need I say more?

Peace,
Pete Zaria.
  • 0

User avatar
Pete Zaria
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 978
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 6:04 pm
Location: Near Seattle, WA
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: Ragnarok » Sat Feb 23, 2008 8:45 am

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:Since they can kill a person with one blow, shouldn't there be?

Actually, there sort of is in the UK, and I imagine other countries might do the same. You have to have a justifiable reason for any item you used during an claim of self defence. If for example you use a penknife or multitool, you have to explain why you were actually carrying it - and "for self-defence" doesn't cut it.

If you don't have a good justifiable reason for it, then you could be facing a completely different legal minefield.
  • 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: TurboSuper » Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:53 am

I think they should just let the teachers keep guns in their desks, or at the very least, tazers.

I like tazers...sure, they aren't perfect, and sure, they aren't 100% non-lethal, but they provide a nice middle-ground in this issue.
  • 0

"If at first you dont succeed, then skydiving is not for you" - Darwin Awards

TurboSuper
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 986
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 1:44 pm
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: SPG » Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:56 am

uberlad wrote: A battery could be put in a sock and swung as a weapon, so does this make a sock a weapon too?


If you've been wearing it for a fortnight, then, yes.
  • 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

PreviousNext

Return to Non-Spudgun Related Discussion

Who is online

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

Reputation System ©'