Professors packing heat!?

#26
#26
lawgator1 said:
Impossible. But, I think every responsible authority out there acknowledges that arming people to deal with people who are armed is unlikely to result in a decrease in shooting deaths.

Especially when the person who started it doesn't care that someone else may be strapped, too.
Click to expand...

It does and can have a positive effect on crime. Refer to my earlier post.(last post page 1 in this thread)
 
#28
#28
cibai said:
Yeah, your gonna need to go ahead and back that up with something substantial for me (a British citizen) to see this as anything more than your waxing about something you have no idea about.
Click to expand...

I believe I saw an article that said violence involving knives spiked after the guns were outlawed.(again this is from memory so don't nail me down on it)
 
#29
#29
BigPapaVol said:
actually, I'm not. I'll let you do your own homework regarding the crime rates, violent and otherwise, pre and post the ridiculous 1997 Firearms Act. I believe the first real information you'll find is about 1999, but it's less than helpful to the gun banning types.

I suspect that I know less than you, but to state that I know nothing of it proves unequivocally that you know nothing about that of which you're speaking.
Click to expand...

KB5252 said:
I believe I saw an article that said violence involving knives spiked after the guns were outlawed.(again this is from memory so don't nail me down on it)
Click to expand...



I only remember one incident where a person armed with a gun stopped a killer. Happened fairly recently, in a church if memory serves.

Now I compare that one incident to the many where responsible people had their guns stolen by criminals who used them, right then or later, to commit violent crime.

And I come to the inevitable conclusion that the latter easily outweighs the former and would outweigh it even more if people carried guns into such settings.


The problem with the logic of the two of you is that you are taking crime statistics after people weren't allowed to buy guns or arm themselves, making a causal connection to increased crime afterward, and then translating that to mean that, in the classroom setting, professors being armed with guns will reduce nutbags coming in on a death wish and shooting up the place (either because the nutbag is scared of the possibility that the prof is armed or because the professor has the wherewithal to shoot the nutbag before he really gets going).

The errors in your logic (even assuming your facts to be correct) are just so monumentally huge and obvious that the fact that you don't see them without their being pointed out to you means that either you don't want to see the errors in logic (more likely) or can't see them (less likely).

Bottom line: if you think that kid at Va. Tech. or the guy up at NIU would have killed fewer people if some professors (may or may not be around at tha time) were armed, you are deluding yourselves on use of firearms in those situations. And, even if one or two might have been spared by a professor somehow getting to and firing his weapon at the bad guy, that number will be smushed by the number of people killed as a direct and indirect result of the professors arming themsevles to being with.
 
#30
#30
lawgator1 said:
I only remember one incident where a person armed with a gun stopped a killer. Happened fairly recently, in a church if memory serves.

Now I compare that one incident to the many where responsible people had their guns stolen by criminals who used them, right then or later, to commit violent crime.

And I come to the inevitable conclusion that the latter easily outweighs the former and would outweigh it even more if people carried guns into such settings.


The problem with the logic of the two of you is that you are taking crime statistics after people weren't allowed to buy guns or arm themselves, making a causal connection to increased crime afterward, and then translating that to mean that, in the classroom setting, professors being armed with guns will reduce nutbags coming in on a death wish and shooting up the place (either because the nutbag is scared of the possibility that the prof is armed or because the professor has the wherewithal to shoot the nutbag before he really gets going).

The errors in your logic (even assuming your facts to be correct) are just so monumentally huge and obvious that the fact that you don't see them without their being pointed out to you means that either you don't want to see the errors in logic (more likely) or can't see them (less likely).

Bottom line: if you think that kid at Va. Tech. or the guy up at NIU would have killed fewer people if some professors (may or may not be around at tha time) were armed, you are deluding yourselves on use of firearms in those situations. And, even if one or two might have been spared by a professor somehow getting to and firing his weapon at the bad guy, that number will be smushed by the number of people killed as a direct and indirect result of the professors arming themsevles to being with.
Click to expand...
your error in logic is that you tried to put words into my mouth. I started this by saying "guns kill people, let's get rid of all of them." That has nothing to do with university professors carrying weapons.

There are very good arguments pro and con regarding the "gun free zones" that many universities have become. I don't really care about that.

I know for sure that if I were a calculating style killer and wanted to make the biggest impact I could by killing as many as possible with my guns, I'd head for a mall, school or other similar "gun free zone."

The other error in your logic implies that had some individual not had their gun, then the thief that stole it and used it would not otherwise have been able to procure a gun and use it. That, my friend, is not just illogical, it's plain silly. Your stolen weapon theory is rife with more silliness than anything I might have set forth.

I get that you're anti-gun and I think that's cute, but don't try to sell it here. You're best served at an Obama rally.

Finally, the individual attempting to steal one of my weapons has a very respectable chance of departing my property with a hole in him.
 
#31
#31
BigPapaVol said:
your error in logic is that you tried to put words into my mouth. I started this by saying "guns kill people, let's get rid of all of them." That has nothing to do with university professors carrying weapons.

There are very good arguments pro and con regarding the "gun free zones" that many universities have become. I don't really care about that.

I know for sure that if I were a calculating style killer and wanted to make the biggest impact I could by killing as many as possible with my guns, I'd head for a mall, school or other similar "gun free zone."

The other error in your logic implies that had some individual not had their gun, then the thief that stole it and used it would not otherwise have been able to procure a gun and use it. That, my friend, is not just illogical, it's plain silly. Your stolen weapon theory is rife with more silliness than anything I might have set forth.

I get that you're anti-gun and I think that's cute, but don't try to sell it here. You're best served at an Obama rally.

Finally, the individual attempting to steal one of my weapons has a very respectable chance of departing my property with a hole in him.
Click to expand...


Two things.

First, while I am sure some of the violence is random, it seems to me that the true nutjobs focus their spree on a target related to what irks them, i.e. that Va. Tech kid shooting up a building on his own campus. Point being that the consideration that a professor might have a gun and try to stop him isn't going to make him have second thoughts, especially when suicide is to follow.

Second, while I am sure that you would do a lot to keep someone from stealing your gun out of your house, that's not the same as walking around with it in a briefcase (easily lost or stolen by a criminal delighted to find that he has also fallen into possession of a gun untraceable to him), or placedin a drawer in a classroom and unattended 20 out of 24 hours a day. Not the same thing as a gun locked in a box in your house.
 
#33
#33
lawgator1 said:
Two things.

First, while I am sure some of the violence is random, it seems to me that the true nutjobs focus their spree on a target related to what irks them, i.e. that Va. Tech kid shooting up a building on his own campus. Point being that the consideration that a professor might have a gun and try to stop him isn't going to make him have second thoughts, especially when suicide is to follow.

Second, while I am sure that you would do a lot to keep someone from stealing your gun out of your house, that's not the same as walking around with it in a briefcase (easily lost or stolen by a criminal delighted to find that he has also fallen into possession of a gun untraceable to him), or placedin a drawer in a classroom and unattended 20 out of 24 hours a day. Not the same thing as a gun locked in a box in your house.
Click to expand...
I see that you have scratched some words on the page, but you started the post by mentioning that you have a couple of points.
 
#35
#35
BigPapaVol said:
I see that you have scratched some words on the page, but you started the post by mentioning that you have a couple of points.
Click to expand...


I am sure that you are being clever, but for the life of me I'm not getting the joke.

Or is that the joke?
 
#36
#36
lawgator1 said:
I am sure that you are being clever, but for the life of me I'm not getting the joke.

Or is that the joke?
Click to expand...
it was my apparently very clever way of asking if you intend to make some points, but it was 100% tongue in cheek. If I'm going to have to continue spelling this out for you, we're going to have to find a different way to communicate.
 
#38
#38
lawgator1 said:
Two things.

First, while I am sure some of the violence is random, it seems to me that the true nutjobs focus their spree on a target related to what irks them, i.e. that Va. Tech kid shooting up a building on his own campus. Point being that the consideration that a professor might have a gun and try to stop him isn't going to make him have second thoughts, especially when suicide is to follow.

Second, while I am sure that you would do a lot to keep someone from stealing your gun out of your house, that's not the same as walking around with it in a briefcase (easily lost or stolen by a criminal delighted to find that he has also fallen into possession of a gun untraceable to him), or placedin a drawer in a classroom and unattended 20 out of 24 hours a day. Not the same thing as a gun locked in a box in your house.
Click to expand...

The first point, I kind of agree with. The idiot is going to commit suicide anyways, the threat of a gun isn't really going to stop him from attempting a shooting.

The second point has a very easy solution: Keep the gun on you at all times. A holster is cheap.
 
#40
#40
lg, while I agree that the mass murderers have a screw loose most of these people act with a level of preparedness and precision that suggests plenty of planning and forethought. I think most of them factor in all variables.
 
#42
#42
If the criminal element believes there is a good chance that those they may wish to rob, intimidate or shoot may possibly be carrying a concealed weapon they will be less likely to act on those impulses. As for the nut jobs, they will find a way to commit whatever act of violence they wish to carry out. Could be a bomb or sword for that matter. Is it worth taking away a law abiding persons right to defend their property or families lives?
 
#43
#43
milohimself said:
I'm all for the bill.

More guns means fewer problems, simple as that.
Click to expand...
exactly. regardless of the point that some lunatic doesn't mind dying at the conclusion of a killing spree, I know they don't like the idea of someone else punching holes in them. Said holes also have the distinct possibility of shortening such a spree. Doesn't mean they will or that the gun will always be available at the right time. Just means they could.

I know for sure that the absence of guns will never stop a shooting spree. Never, ever.
 
#44
#44
KB5252 said:
Yes but if it were and it helped to save a couple of lives it sure was worth it. The odds are low that it would be handy at the instance it was needed unless it was concealed and ready at all times.
Click to expand...

dickens821 said:
I'm sure that's what the Virginia Tech or UNI people thought too.
Click to expand...

I think you missed my point. The idea of carrying a concealed weapon on a daily basis into my classroom on the infinitesimal chance that 1) a shooter comes to my class and 2) I get him/her before she gets me is nuts.

There are 100's of classes going on in a typical day at any given university. There have been probably less than 20 total classes where a shooter entered in the last 10+ years. Unless you arm virtually all professors/staff, the chance of stopping a shooter is incredibly low. I'd say the chances of a gun accident outweigh these chances.
 
#45
#45
volinbham said:
I think you missed my point. The idea of carrying a concealed weapon on a daily basis into my classroom on the infinitesimal chance that 1) a shooter comes to my class and 2) I get him/her before she gets me is nuts.

There are 100's of classes going on in a typical day at any given university. There have been probably less than 20 total classes where a shooter entered in the last 10+ years. Unless you arm virtually all professors/staff, the chance of stopping a shooter is incredibly low. I'd say the chances of a gun accident outweigh these chances.
Click to expand...
I think you're absolutely right. However, the potential deterrence is what you're leaving out of the equation. It might not be a huge deterrent, but the Gun Free Zone thing is a problem. Some killing spree type might think twice about the academic buildings. Might just go straight to the dorms.
 
#46
#46
volinbham said:
I think you missed my point. The idea of carrying a concealed weapon on a daily basis into my classroom on the infinitesimal chance that 1) a shooter comes to my class and 2) I get him/her before she gets me is nuts.
.
Click to expand...

I bet you carry things around in your wallet that you don't ever use either(that is not a cheap shot at that 2 year old condom).
 
#50
#50
volinbham said:
I think you missed my point. The idea of carrying a concealed weapon on a daily basis into my classroom on the infinitesimal chance that 1) a shooter comes to my class and 2) I get him/her before she gets me is nuts.

There are 100's of classes going on in a typical day at any given university. There have been probably less than 20 total classes where a shooter entered in the last 10+ years. Unless you arm virtually all professors/staff, the chance of stopping a shooter is incredibly low. I'd say the chances of a gun accident outweigh these chances.
Click to expand...
If a gun is carried on you at all times and you know how to use that gun responsibly the chances of an accident are very low. Unless you make it a habit to play with said gun and show it off to people ( which is not what a responsible gun owner would do anyway). I understand your point. There is not a great chance of you ever needing one but if you did you would have a better chance of saving your life or someone else than if you did not have one.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top