Quote (CoheedAndCambria @ Nov 22 2015 04:33pm)

That is such a one-step mindset, like your thought process isn't complete.

The vast vast vast majority of gun violence is in areas where it is legal to carry.
For every one justifiable homicide, there are 44 criminal homicides. Not accounting for the dramatic suicide rates that are spiked by access to guns.

On campuses, crime rates are DRAMATICALLY lower than the surrounding areas, especially violent crimes.
Typically, the biggest crime is theft. The largest causes of death are suicide or alcohol.

So why introduce guns (which are absolutely proven to increase suicide rates) to an environment where theft and alcohol-related deaths are the biggest concerns?

It's such a silly idea.

In my state, all the boards of governors for the university systems vehemently oppose introducing open/concealed carry on campus. The majority of students oppose it. The chiefs of police oppose it. Yet NRA lobbyists still manage to get this shit through the House.

The chief of police told me the rigorous training they have to go through in shoot-or-don't-shoot scenarios. Over 700 hours total. To get a permit in my state, no specific training is required.

He told me the fear he would have responding to a campus shooting where other concealed carriers were trying to get involved. Instead of easily identifying the shooter, he would have to determine who's whom in a very high-stress moment of shoot-or-don't-shoot, and the shit storm that would ensue if he misidentified the shooter and killed the wrong person terrified him.

So not only does it make students and faculty more on edge, it increases police hesitation in the heat of the moment.

Quote (AspenSniper @ Nov 22 2015 08:52am)

Very interesting argument actually! As someone who prides themselves as a pure moderate, I see both sides but in a rare twist I lean right on a gun issue here.

I see two scenarios. Let's say a gunman in a movie theater goes nuts. A gun toting conservative likely could shoot and kill that guy. However the theater rendered him a weapon less victim. However again, he assumed the risk by entering a gun free zone.

On the other hand, some mandatory places are gun free where you don't really have the option to not go there. The DMV, post offices, school, etc. hard to just opt not to go there.

So should all these places require their own security if they're going to force areas to be gun free? You know what, yeah that kinda makes sense.

Quote (Caulder10 @ Nov 22 2015 05:50pm)

This is where you failed, and makes me wonder at your ability as a lawyer.
In all likelihood he would not do a damn thing. Rarely is a gun toting civilian capable of acting in violent situations. There is as much chance that they would escalate the situation, or do absolutely nothing but panic and freak out.

Quote (Shiner @ Nov 22 2015 08:33pm)

If students or teachers were armed, you'd have to crawl over a lot less bodies to get to the shooter's body- that a responsible concealed carry student would gladly point out to the officers.

Quote (CoheedAndCambria @ Nov 22 2015 06:08pm)

You chose to ignore literally every part of that.

People get murdered all the time in droves where it is already legal to carry.

But since there is so much focus on campuses, I'm assuming conceal/open carry would be more condensed on campus, if such a law were passed in my state.

So let's say someone does choose to take matters into their own hands, it makes it much harder for police to identify who's the real shooter in such a crowded environment.

Again, you chose to ignore the theft of guns and the increase in suicides that would occur if people had the "freedom" to have guns on campus, which are quantifiable facts. Not your hunch that people would "crawl over a lot less bodies." It would be more likely that someone who had access to your gun would either steal it or kill himself rather than the vigilante shooter scenario going according to plan.

This is all not accounting for any racial issues. Add that into the mix, and it's much more scary story.

People always assume its going to be them vs. the bad guy. But we already have extremely tense racial relations, and I can too easily imagine a police officer/vigilante shooting a legally armed black man, assuming he was the shooter.

It's a horrible idea all the way around.

Quote (Shiner @ Nov 22 2015 09:04pm)

This has been proven false in many cases. There are loads and loads of stories (not on mainstream media for obvious reasons) where an armed civilian stopped an active shooter. Yes, there are people who would cower in fear - even if armed - but more times than not when faced with death, someone with the means to prevent it is going to do so.

Quote

The most common occurrence was that the shooter stopped the attack spontaneously on their own. The decision was often made after an initial burst of violence, in which the shooter attacked everyone who was in the immediate area, Blair said.
When those who remained either ran away or barricaded themselves in secure areas, shooters often made the decision to leave the attack site or commit suicide, he said.

Quote

If a gun is stolen, it's the owner's fault for being a flaming idiot. A weapon left lying around is means for revocation of a permit in my opinion. If you don't have the means to keep your weapon stored safely you don't need to own said weapon

Quote (Shiner @ Nov 22 2015 09:23pm)

I didn't ignore it, but I didn't exactly make it clear. I explained more in an edit, but I'll go further. If a gun is stolen, it's the owner's fault for being a flaming idiot. A weapon left lying around is means for revocation of a permit in my opinion. If you don't have the means to keep your weapon stored safely you don't need to own said weapon.
Suicide is going to occur whether the person has a gun or not. Guns don't commit suicide anymore than they commit murder. End of story on that point.

My biggest point is that if students are armed, the police are not even going to respond to the scene in time to have to deal with a shooter in most cases. He will have already been put down and weapons will be holstered and concealed by the time police are even on scene.
- In such a situation, an active shooter is going to be easily identifiable by other students whether they're carrying or not. It's the guy everyone is running away from, likely isn't taking cover, isn't panicking, etc.
- An armed student is already there. Police are minutes away. A LOT can occur in a matter of 5-6 minutes. If in the same room, an armed student (or teacher) could have the situation ended in less than a minute.
If students are not armed, an active shooter has a plethora of easy targets, and is clearly identifiable by police. I prefer the former to the latter.

/e Thank you for debating and not being a pretentious, raging douche in presenting your opinion.

Quote (CoheedAndCambria @ Nov 22 2015 06:33pm)

I didn't see that edit until way after I posted. My bad.

As for "suicide is going to occur whether the person has a gun or not" is patently false.

Harvard Injury Control Research Center 2010 study: "Suicide is the 10th-leading cause of death in the U.S.; in 2010, 38,364 people killed themselves. In more than half of these cases, they used firearms. Indeed, more people in this country kill themselves with guns than with all other intentional means combined, including hanging, poisoning or overdose, jumping, or cutting. Though guns are not the most common method by which people attempt suicide, they are the most lethal. About 85 percent of suicide attempts with a firearm end in death. (Drug overdose, the most widely used method in suicide attempts, is fatal in less than 3 percent of cases.) Moreover, guns are an irreversible solution to what is often a passing crisis. Suicidal individuals who take pills or inhale car exhaust or use razors have time to reconsider their actions or summon help. With a firearm, once the trigger is pulled, there’s no turning back."

On to your other points, your scenario is one in which you're assuming that (a) someone with a clear conscious, ability to not panic and shoot the proper person is right near the shooter (which is highly unlikely) and (b) that the police are no where to be found.

If there are "gun-free zones," police are littered in the area. Campuses, schools and movie theaters alike. So I really don't think those points hold up well either.

Quote (Shiner @ Nov 22 2015 09:44pm)

We're not going to get anywhere on arming people on campuses, so I'll agree to disagree with you. As far as suicide, my point is that no one decides to commit suicide BECAUSE they have a gun. If they really want to kill themselves, they're going to do it anyway. All the article states is that guns are more effective in achieving their desired outcome. If they want to use a gun to do it, they can simply go get one - whether they're allowed to have one on campus or not, as long as they're able to legally purchase a firearm.... while I do see your point, I do not fully agree and I do not think it is a valid reason to not allow someone to be armed if they are legally able and choose to be.

Quote (Shiner @ 22 Nov 2015 20:23)

I didn't ignore it, but I didn't exactly make it clear. I explained more in an edit, but I'll go further. If a gun is stolen, it's the owner's fault for being a flaming idiot. A weapon left lying around is means for revocation of a permit in my opinion. If you don't have the means to keep your weapon stored safely you don't need to own said weapon.
Suicide is going to occur whether the person has a gun or not. Guns don't commit suicide anymore than they commit murder. End of story on that point.

Quote

My biggest point is that if students are armed, the police are not even going to respond to the scene in time to have to deal with a shooter in most cases. He will have already been put down and weapons will be holstered and concealed by the time police are even on scene.
- In such a situation, an active shooter is going to be easily identifiable by other students whether they're carrying or not. It's the guy everyone is running away from, likely isn't taking cover, isn't panicking, etc.
- An armed student is already there. Police are minutes away. A LOT can occur in a matter of 5-6 minutes. If in the same room, an armed student (or teacher) could have the situation ended in less than a minute.
If students are not armed, an active shooter has a plethora of easy targets, and is clearly identifiable by police. I prefer the former to the latter.

/e Thank you for debating and not being a pretentious, raging douche in presenting your opinion.