Quake3World

what's the point of this thread. any discussion regarding civil rights concerning guns is a ballgame. just goes back and forth

Aside from Kracus who has told us of his exploits, has anyone here ever been in a situation where they needed a gun/used a gun (or maybe even have a friend who had to use a gun) to save themselves or someone else from an imminent threat? And this doesn't include military service where that could be a given.

tnf wrote:Aside from Kracus who has told us of his exploits, has anyone here ever been in a situation where they needed a gun/used a gun (or maybe even have a friend who had to use a gun) to save themselves or someone else from an imminent threat? And this doesn't include military service where that could be a given.

Yes. It kept me from getting royally pummeled by seven drunk white guys. I was sober, btw.

Fjoggs wrote:what's the point of this thread.

It has kept many weirdos on the computer and off the streets.

Fjoggs wrote:what's the point of this thread. any discussion regarding civil rights concerning guns is a ballgame. just goes back and forth

then i suggest in the future not to click on it.

zing

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:

Fjoggs wrote:what's the point of this thread. any discussion regarding civil rights concerning guns is a ballgame. just goes back and forth

then i suggest in the future not to click on it.

you are full of bitter zings lately

Nightshade wrote:

Jackal wrote:A gun is not insurance against violence though. In fact it's the exact opposite.

I must disagree. I see your point, but I disagree. The person in possession of the weapon determines the likelihood of a violent altercation. I see a lot of absolutes being thrown around in this thread, most of them by GFY. I think the crux of the problem lies in who is allowed to own a gun and what criteria must be met to do so. I'm willing to bet that crimes committed by those with CC permits are quite low, especially in comparison to those that obtain guns illegally. Most likely because, IMO, CC holders are better trained in the use of firearms or because they really don't need to carry in the first place (more the latter) AND because criminals that steal guns are already criminals and more prone to improper, unprovoked use of a firearm.
I think at this point that if you're arguing for gun control in the US, you're a.) Not paying attention or b.) Not living here and not paying attention. Newsflash kids: GUN CONTROL DOESN'T WORK. There are something like 20,000 county, state, and federal gun laws in existence in the US and they've done...SHIT. They mostly just irritate legal gun owners.
There are times when I think it should be more difficult to buy a handgun. There should be some sort of situational testing you have to undergo, and if you fail, you can't own a gun until you can prove you know how to use it responsibly. I know it starts down the slippery slope of infringing on the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, but if you have to be trained and tested to drive a car... (a weapon that kills FAR more people than guns every year) Stupid people just shouldn't be able to own guns of any kind.

Isn't most of the constitutional right to bear arms originally actually to do with killing the English and mexicans?

We've got away from the slightly more specific point at the start of the thread - do you think it's acceptable for any student to carry any sort of concealed weapon in school? Bearing in mind, as I mentioned earlier that high school shootings are a negligable cause of death in that age group.

The constitutional right to bear arms was given to the public in order for the people to have the ability to defend themselves against a corrupt government.

You have to be at least 21 years of age to carry a CW. So highschool students wouldn't be able to carry a weapon. It would be the teachers. And I don't have a problem with teachers or staff carrying a gun.

Geebs wrote: Isn't most of the constitutional right to bear arms originally actually to do with killing the English and mexicans?

We've got away from the slightly more specific point at the start of the thread - do you think it's acceptable for any student to carry any sort of concealed weapon in school? Bearing in mind, as I mentioned earlier that high school shootings are a negligable cause of death in that age group.

I didn't think anyone would assume we were talking about guns in high schools. Virginia Tech is a college. I don't want guns in the hands of anyone but responsible adults. And I think you must prove yourself responsible at a very stringent level.

Geebs wrote: Isn't most of the constitutional right to bear arms originally actually to do with killing the English and mexicans?

We've got away from the slightly more specific point at the start of the thread - do you think it's acceptable for any student to carry any sort of concealed weapon in school? Bearing in mind, as I mentioned earlier that high school shootings are a negligable cause of death in that age group.

As Gwamps said, it was more about being able to defend yourself against tyranny.

No, I don't think that teachers should be allowed to carry guns, that's not addressing the problem it's treating to symptom. I do think that university students of legal age should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. I don't see how a campus is different from a public square.

YourGrandpa wrote:The constitutional right to bear arms was given to the public in order for the people to have the ability to defend themselves against a corrupt government.

You have to be at least 21 years of age to carry a CW. So highschool students wouldn't be able to carry a weapon. It would be the teachers. And I don't have a problem with teachers or staff carrying a gun.

Wow. Just...wow.

Geebs wrote:Isn't most of the constitutional right to bear arms originally actually to do with killing the English and mexicans?

you could try reading it?

seremtan wrote:

Geebs wrote:Isn't most of the constitutional right to bear arms originally actually to do with killing the English and mexicans?

you could try reading it?

Nah, they'd just amend it again. Plus the originally intended definition of bearing arms is tied up in tedious legal wrangling which stems from the judges' poor knowledge of 18th century English. You snide fuckhead.

Nightshade wrote: As Gwamps said, it was more about being able to defend yourself against tyranny.

Yeah, tyranny - i.e. (at that time) the English....

so if you guys haven't overthrown the corrupt douchebags who are your government right now, how much more are you going to take it in the ass before you do something about it?

the 2nd amendment is a fucking weak excuse, and you know it

21st century tyranny = English Q3W'rs

Grudge wrote:so if you guys haven't overthrown the corrupt douchebags who are your government right now, how much more are you going to take it in the ass before you do something about it?

the 2nd amendment is a fucking weak excuse, and you know it

And people say I'm the moron.

How about this, worry about your own country, cause tbh I doubt most Americans give a flying fuck what anyone else thinks about anything we do that doesn't affect foreign policy. The real question is why you people have such a hard on for issues where you have no say.

etroll

EtUL wrote: And people say I'm the moron.

How about this, worry about your own country, cause tbh I doubt most Americans give a flying fuck what anyone else thinks about anything we do that doesn't affect foreign policy. The real question is why you people have such a hard on for issues where you have no say.

Moron.

Seriously, how much time do you waste bitching and thinking about a country that you aren't part of and you have no way to change? Whatever polishes your peter I guess.

You're really stupid.

Geebs wrote:
Yeah, tyranny - i.e. (at that time) the English....

Well, yes and no. There were a couple reasons for granting citizens the right to bear arms. One of them was to prevent the need for standing army, providing for citizne militias, etc. (cracks me the fuck up that they're seen as potential domestic terrorists now. Worried about something, Uncle Sam?) That's obviously not a valid reason today, given the massive military we currently have.
The other was to prevent FUTURE governments from being able to oppress the citizenry the way...George...did. HEY WAIT A FUCKING MINUTE.

Nightshade wrote: I must disagree. I see your point, but I disagree. The person in possession of the weapon determines the likelihood of a violent altercation. I see a lot of absolutes being thrown around in this thread, most of them by GFY. I think the crux of the problem lies in who is allowed to own a gun and what criteria must be met to do so. I'm willing to bet that crimes committed by those with CC permits are quite low, especially in comparison to those that obtain guns illegally. Most likely because, IMO, CC holders are better trained in the use of firearms or because they really don't need to carry in the first place (more the latter) AND because criminals that steal guns are already criminals and more prone to improper, unprovoked use of a firearm.

Honestly I think having a carry permit is a bit of a deterrent to violent crime in a couple of ways. First, it makes you feel like you have more personable responsibility as a citizen. Secondly, once you have a carry permit, then it would be stupid to commit a crime with a gun, because the authorities already know you have one, making it more likely that you'd get caught.

To someone who had ever thought of committing a gun crime, applying for a concealed carry permit would be like advertising yourself.

As far as allowing guns on campus, this is one of those cases that makes it hard for me to take a stance and reconcile it with all my other beliefs. Private schools are obvious to me: they have the right (IMO) to prevent people from carrying firearms on their property just like any business should; it's company policy. It's just like first amendment rights at work: you certainly have them, but don't expect to keep your job if you exercise them in a way that goes against company policy.

For public schools though, it seems a little more complicated. I mean, they may as well be a public park, and you can't keep people with permits from carrying in a public park, and you really shouldn't be able to (although you can in certain federal buildings). On the other hand, these are institutions of learning and it seems completely wrong to have armed students walking around campus, especially in cases already mentioned when there are completely over the top hammered people wandering around at all hours of the night looking for trouble to get into.

But then something happens like VA Tech and it makes you wonder how many lives might have been saved if a responsible owner with a permit had his gun in class that day, and was free to use it to defend the lives of himself and others, just like anywhere else.

I almost think it's too complex an issue to make a hard ruling on, but I'm leaning slightly toward allowing people with permits to carry on campus just like anywhere else.

As for high schools, I wonder if there is some kind of middle ground, like having, say, 3 designated licensed staff members on hand and giving only them access to a gun safe in the school offices somewhere.

Putting armories in high schools is a sickening concept to me. If it's a violent school, hire HIGHLY trained security officers and install metal detectors. Then, dedicate resources to fixing the underlying problems.

Nightshade wrote:Putting armories in high schools is a sickening concept to me. If it's a violent school, hire HIGHLY trained security officers and install metal detectors. Then, dedicate resources to fixing the underlying problems.

Nightshade wrote:Putting armories in high schools is a sickening concept to me. If it's a violent school, hire HIGHLY trained security officers and install metal detectors. Then, dedicate resources to fixing the underlying problems.

If you say a public campus is like a public square, then what legally separates it from a public high school campus? It sounds like you don't think we should legally be able to prevent 21 year old licensed students from carrying on public grounds - why is it okay to prevent adult teachers with permits from carrying on public grounds?

I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with you, but the distinction seems important.