Concealed carry on campus--good or bad?

scsinet

scsinet

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2477193
This person was a law abiding citizen... good student... steady relationship... and had obtained this gun legally.

Any law abiding person, 18 or older, should be able to buy a gun legally. There's no reason not to. If they want to be criminals, they'd just get it illegally if they couldn't get it legally.
Everybody is a law abiding citizen until they commit a crime. He stopped becoming law abiding the moment he set foot on the campus with the gun. Of course, shooting a bunch of people didn't help either.
Once again, the point is missed. The point of this thread is not about the legal availability of guns. It's about whether the ban on concealed carry on campuses is working.
Who in the anti-gun camp can tell me that the gun laws are working? What do you have? You have speculated that by removing the ban, more gun violence would take place on campuses. What do I have? I have proof that in spite of the ban, people are carrying guns onto campuses and shooting.
Speculation... proof...

So, isn't it time we start letting law abiding people help maintain the security of themselves and others?
Once again, law abiders. All law abiders can become criminals by breaking the law. If they decide to break the law, then why would a carry ban help at that point? It isn't helping now... what a shocker... the gun ban isn't stopping criminals...
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
My conspiracy theory side has to wonder why they have blasted on the news that this kid got his guns legally. When the other shooters used illeagal guns, you haven't heard that mentioned...
 
bdhutier

bdhutier

Member
Originally Posted by SCSInet
http:///forum/post/2478097
Yes please. This is good stuff. Good argument for those who want to compare us to other countried where guns are banned.
Here's the word from the Australian Govt.:
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi153.html
The Australian Institute of Criminology has been monitoring homicides in Australia since 1989. Homicide includes murder, manslaughter and infanticide, but excludes driving-related fatalities unless these occur in the course of a criminal event. In 2005-06 there were 283 homicide incidents in Australia, resulting in 301 victims, committed by 336 offenders. This represents an increase from the previous year, although overall it appears that homicide incidents are in decline. The figure below shows the number of homicide incidents in Australia from 1989-90 to 2005-06. There has been a statistically significant downward trend in the incidence of homicide in Australia over this 17 year period


http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi115.html
The way in which crime is recorded varies across jurisdictions and over time, so comparing crime rates between countries (and, sometimes, within a country) is not necessarily an accurate indicator of differences in actual levels of crime in those countries. Similarly, crime rate trend data in a single jurisdiction are not necessarily reflective of trends in actual levels of crime. Changes in rates of recorded crime may be the result of changes in the way crime data are collected, or changes in the proportion of victims reporting criminal offences to police. The figure below shows a dramatic increase in recorded violent crime in England and Wales between 1998 and the present. Rather than indicating a sharp rise in actual violence, however, this increase is largely the direct result of major changes to the way crime data are recorded in the England and Wales. First in 1998 and then again in 2002, amendments were introduced to include a broader range of offences, to promote greater consistency, and to take a more victim-led approach where alleged offences were recorded as well as evidence-based ones. The changes affected recorded violent crimes more than property or other crimes. Incremental changes over time in recording procedures in the United States, Canada and Australia may also have influenced recorded violent crime trend data in these countries.

Note: Violent crime comprises homicide, assault, sexual assault and robbery. Time periods charted reflect the availability of consistent, nationwide data for each country.
 
bdhutier

bdhutier

Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2478255
Well, I guess that answers that, the question is, what were the changes in recording practics? Is that a valid assumption?
Not sure, but those must have been either:
1. REALLY sweeping changes, like people attending rugby and soccer matches were now recorded as armed robberies.
2. There were a LOT of violent crimes not being previously recorded.
Something else of note... In the first slide (homicides), the "statistically significant downward trend in the incidence of homicide in Australia" amounts to a decline from roughly 330 victims/yr to around 290-300 victims/yr. Wow, that's really significant.

Notice the up-shoot in the 2006-2007 year...
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by bdhutier
http:///forum/post/2478264
Not sure, but those must have been either:
1. REALLY sweeping changes, like people attending rugby and soccer matches were now recorded as armed robberies.
2. There were a LOT of violent crimes not being previously recorded.
Something else of note... In the first slide (homicides), the "statistically significant downward trend in the incidence of homicide in Australia" amounts to a decline from roughly 330 victims/yr to around 290-300 victims/yr. Wow, that's really significant.

Notice the up-shoot in the 2006-2007 year...
I would imagine that would be a per capita number, making the change more significant. I seriously doubt in the entire continent of Australia there were only 300 murders.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2478524
I would imagine that would be a per capita number, making the change more significant. I seriously doubt in the entire continent of Australia there were only 300 murders.
I wouldn't be surprised actually... When you live on a Continent where everything from snails, to spiders, to jellyfish are trying to kill you, killing your neighbor is less of a priority
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2478569
I wouldn't be surprised actually... When you live on a Continent where everything from snails, to spiders, to jellyfish are trying to kill you, killing your neighbor is less of a priority

I guess not, those are actual numbers. I didn't realise how few people actually lived there. The rate per person is close to that of the US.
This is an interesting number.
Claim Three:
In the state of Victoria homicides with firearms are up 300%
Response:
Victoria recorded 7 firearm-related homicides in 1996, and 19 firearm-related homicides in 1997. That number has now fallen.
1996 - 7
1997 - 19 (171.4% increase from 1996 to 1997)
1998 - 17 (10.5% decrease from 1997 to 1998).
1999 - 14 (17.6% decrease from 1998 to 1999).
14 armed breakings that is it?
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Bill of Rights
December 15, 1791
PREAMBLE
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the plate to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer or a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
How are we doing?
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2478624
If the gun laws work so well, why is it more dangerous to live in Washington DC than Baghdad?
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=78
People still seem to forget the Constitution.
Read it .
Know it.
Live it.
The Second Ammendment is the reset button for the Constitution.
Or we could go after the criminal, and not the tool.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Article...sue=007,%20015
I do mean it when I say:
"From my cold dead hands."
There is one guy on here that the 2nd amendment doesn't mean individuals rights to bear arms. But for the only reason as to be part of a malitia. Doesn't make alot of sense to me.
 
J

jrthomas40

Guest
Originally Posted by KerriAnn
http:///forum/post/2475799
i'm not saying its going to eliminate the problem but it will over time minimize the problem. the horse we should be pursuing is why is this happening?? why is it that over the past how many years these teens have come to the theory that instead of just dealing with problems in a rational manner they can just go on a killing spree and have a media tribute to their death. and i still say it all comes down to LACK OF PARENTING!

dont you work at a bank???....dont most banks have an armed security guard if it is big enough in the event a robber comes in...so lets say heaven forbid....you are working one day at your bank an armed robber comes in and has the gun pointed at you asking for the money...if there was an armed security guard there and shoots the man you are cool with that because he just saved your life but you dont want guns so your guard has a flashlight and the man shoots you because there was no deterrent or protector....i agree that there really is no need for guns BUT there are crazy and BAD people out there that will find SOMEWAY to carry out what it is they want to do....and my guess would be that you want someone there that would be able to protect you
i think it would be a good idea to have a licensed carrier on campus and other common places things like this happen but i also think that it needs to be limited...there need to be certified people like marshalls on a plane in the class rooms...so why not let it me the professors or the teachers keep it out of the students and keep the professors/teachers certified to operate the weapon
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
As for my personal experience, I went to a school that has a huge Criminal Justice Program, so at any given point their were people with handguns all over the place. (carred by trained law enforcement personel) Heck my roommate for a class presentation carried about 5 different handguns from a 9 mm to a .45 revolver in this backback to class.
But I definately don't think that they should let just any kid run around with a bunch of guns in the class room. (I don't have a problem with them in dorms or their living areas)
But I see no problem with the idea of a stamped CHL that allows carrying anywear, (with a higher trained person) like they do with reserve police officers. Run a little program, make it restrictively expensive for the average trouble maker. Offer it to a few model citizens, military students, ex military, law enforcement whoever the class for free, give them a nice gun. It would be pretty simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top