Thread: Guns on school campuses?

Interestingly enough in Utah cc on school campuses is legal. Does anyone remember the last time we had a school shooting in Utah? Just having guns on campuses don't automatically make them powder kegs.


Concealed weapons on school campuses have made a large difference in previous school shootings, but people refuse to see that and instead look at the "fighting fire with fire" theory, and/or assume that all firearms are going to go off and hurt someone.

As a bit of anecdotal evidence that people are fucking retarded, my previous roommate didn't want me to have a loaded 1911 in my bedroom. In his mind he legitimately thought his life was at risk for one reason or another, despite the fact that my 1911 was under my mattress at all times, fully safe, and no one knew where it was or handled it. Somehow, he thought that bad luck would bypass the 3 safeties the gun has and it would discharge through the wall and get him.

People hear the word "gun" and typically think "I'm gonna get shot."

I could go try and find the references, but I recently did a school report on concealed carry and something like 90% of polled robbers and violent offenders said they'd not approach a home when people were home for fear of being shot in places where gun laws allowed for civilians to have more guns, or in areas where CCPs were prevalent. The hard evidence does support CCs on school campuses, but naive people who think that for some reason everyone would run out and carry a gun in Poli-sci if they made it legal to do so, or the idiot above that thought sophomores in high school shouldn't be allowed to carry on campus.

Well no fuck, they can't legally own the guns, why the fuck would we let them conceal them and go into math? People who don't know what they are talking about, but still sound off need to shut up and listen.


Ha, I think some people will still remember the famous argument with the woman who's husband claimed to be pretty much captain america in Iraq.

You're not naive for not loving guns or even for disliking guns, but you are naive to think that people who want to have a gun are "paranoid" and that it's a "dubious personality trait" that makes someone impossible to trust. Those sentiments display a naive lack of understanding of the mentality of people who want to own guns for self-defense. Like it or not, violent crime is real and it does affect millions of Americans every year; like it or not, the police probably won't be able to respond in time if someone tries to make you into a victim. Being aware of these facts and deciding to be able to defend yourself isn't paranoia. If someone who does this is impossible for you to trust, then the criteria by which you award personal trust are deeply flawed and, yes, naive. Someone's desire to defend themselves against the commonplace phenomenon of violent crime has nothing to do with how trustworthy they are.

Originally Posted by gismo

Like it or not, alot of people are going to be concerned with the strong desire some people have to be in possession of a gun. I don't know what is so hard to understand about that, regardless of any percieved benefits it may or may not have, the fact still remains you have people who really want guns and it isn't naive to be worried or even frightened by this. I wouldn't want to live with someone who was determined to have a gun in the house, I just don't trust people who are that paranoid and who place such importance on owning firearms, it is a dubious character trait as far as I am concerned. Don't tell me I am naive for not loving guns.

Originally Posted by Syme

You're not naive for not loving guns or even for disliking guns, but you are naive to think that people who want to have a gun are "paranoid" and that it's a "dubious personality trait" that makes someone impossible to trust. Those sentiments display a naive lack of understanding of the mentality of people who want to own guns for self-defense. Like it or not, violent crime is real and it does affect millions of Americans every year; like it or not, the police probably won't be able to respond in time if someone tries to make you into a victim. Being aware of these facts and deciding to be able to defend yourself isn't paranoia. If someone who does this is impossible for you to trust, then the criteria by which you award personal trust are deeply flawed and, yes, naive. Someone's desire to defend themselves against the commonplace phenomenon of violent crime has nothing to do with how trustworthy they are.

I could not have said it better myself

The reason you hear people talking abouth how deadly some of their guns are is this. If you are in a self defense scenario, and the criminal has a gun, and is also shooting at you, do you want something that will punch a hole in him and make him bleed out in a few hours, or do you want something that will knock him on his ass and make him stop shooting immediately? As far as guns designed to kill people, Im willing to be alot of you dont know this. AR-15s, which are modeled after the militarys M16 and M4s, were actually designed to INCAPACITATE. THey made them with the idea that if you can wound him, then you can make a few guys have to carry/take care of him, which takes them out of the fight also. Effectively taking 3-4 people out of a fight with one bullet. Dont get me wrong though, those guns are deadly with the right ammunition.

And as far as people that have what you call man killers, well those make the best home defense weapons, not only that, they are fun to shoot, and alot of people who are into firearms like to collect all kinds oif different guns. Myself included. Id buy a fully automatic Thompson if I could afford it. Fun to shoot, and collectible. Im one of those people that is in all 3 categories of gun use. Target shooting, hunting, and self defense. And if someone broke in my house, Id grab my deadliest weapons. Period. Im going for my AR or my .45 with hollow points. People who think about self defense just have a different mindset than people who dont really worry about it.

Oh and wait till you see what Im getting in the mail today and building Sole. You will love it. lol

I would totally agree that gun owners who talk (or think) about using their guns to kill in defense of their property are irresponsible loons. The only thing you should ever discharge a firearm in defense of is human life. Even if a gun owner doesn't agree with this in principle, it's still the law in most states. I'm also with Sole 100% in finding it distasteful when gun owners seem to derive pleasure from bragging or fantasizing about deadly their guns are. Using a gun for self-defense is a deadly serious matter and it should be treated that way. Having to shoot someone is about as desirable as getting in a bad car accident; it's something you want to avoid at almost all costs.

But I also have to point out that the evidence supporting the efficacy of self-defense with a gun is not "anecdotal", it's grounded in a plethora of government-provided statistics and reputable, peer-reviewed criminological research. Not that this makes it any less distasteful for gun owners to chub out about killing people, of course.

Originally Posted by Anonymous D

AR-15s, which are modeled after the militarys M16 and M4s, were actually designed to INCAPACITATE. THey made them with the idea that if you can wound him, then you can make a few guys have to carry/take care of him, which takes them out of the fight also. Effectively taking 3-4 people out of a fight with one bullet.

This is actually an urban legend.

Originally Posted by solecistic

Right, see, that's the most insane thing I can imagine. Someone's trying to take your TV, so you want to kill them.

Where did I say I would just out right shoot or kill someone. If I heard something I'd get a gun to go investigate and if they weren't immediate threat and get on the ground, they can just wait for the cops to come get them. Bit if they go for a gun or come at me with a knife then I'm doing what I have to do. If it's me or them then I'm not letting it be me and I want every advantage I can get.

Originally Posted by solecistic

Right, see, that's the most insane thing I can imagine. Someone's trying to take your TV, so you want to kill them.

It's insane to you that I'd want to defend my wife and/or children from someone willing to break into my house?

Did he say he was going to grab an M60 and perforate the walls? No, he said he was going to grab his most effective weapon and defend his house.

Originally Posted by solecistic

Maybe not. It's just the way things are phrased, like if you hear a fucking bird flap its wings outside of your window, you're going to bust out your semi-automatic rifle (universal "you," naturally). I'm sure some of my own bias is at play, here. If none of you would shoot someone for stealing from you, then we have no beef, really.

Now this is a naive post. You're goddamn fucking right I'm going to grab my deadliest weapon if my daughter is asleep and I reasonably believe someone is in my house. If someone has my Tv in their hands and they are stealing you bet your ass I'll aim at them and tell them to stop, but am I going to Dirty Harry their ass if they don't? Of course not, and honestly the fact that you even felt that was a possibility reveals a lot about you and your ignorance about gun owners and/or enthusiasts.

Whenever someone says they are catholic do you automatically assume they are butchering their neighbors for believing in a different god? Cause there were a bunch of Catholics that did that too, and really that was your argument supporting your theory, right?

So in short, yes you are being incredibly naive and foresighted for making rash remarks and implying that me doing anything but my ultimate best to insure that the person breaking into my house is just after my property and not here to rape my wife and/or daughter is insane. So if you want to discuss the facts of gun ownership's impact on crime or share some anecdote that you feel is pertinent, then by all means.

But let's not just shout some propaganda rhetoric and perpetuate negative stereotypes outside of flames, k pumpkin?

Originally Posted by solecistic

I acknowledge that I am biased and try my best to objectively steer around that. Sometimes I do that more efficiently than other times, but you know what? In this hypothetical situation where a robber has your TV in his hands, you're willing to point a loaded weapon at him. You then go on to say, like it's the most obvious thing in the world, that you wouldn't really pull the trigger. I apologize sincerely for making a naive connection between pointing a loaded gun at someone and firing a weapon. Maybe you don't realize that you have the luxury of knowing your intentions. For those of us who don't live in your brain, there is sometimes a lack of clarity. I find it genuinely baffling that you're so incensed over my assumption that you'd shoot someone you're pointing a gun at.

For the record, when you talk like you're John Wayne, don't be surprised when someone assumes you're going to shoot like you're in a Western. Gun enthusiasts who talk at length about their badass, deadly weapons make people like me nervous because it seems to show a distinct lack of regard for human life. When you glorify a machine that exists for the sole purpose of killing other people, you tend to exude an air of bloodlust. It is unnerving. That was my original point. Plenty of you seem to think it would be particularly gratifying to kill a criminal. I just think that's a little sick - sorry! But don't worry, I am not trying to pry your gun from your cold, dead fingers.

And you can breathe a sigh of relief, castle, because I am resolutely done with this thread. We will never agree, and that's just fine.

I like how I'm the bloodthirsty one because I don't like the idea of someone coming into my house in the middle of the night, even if it's just for my TV. I don't require that you agree with me. Differing opinions are what make the world spin. But your blatant, and at this point almost willful, ignorance is appalling.

I couldn't care less that you think I'm a maverick or whatever, or that you think I'm literally crazy enough to kill a man for petty theft. I just think it's funny that as a woman (not meant to be a sexist, but maternal instincts being what they are) you REFUSE to see any shred of reason in having, maintaining, and eventually maybe having to use, firearms in the defense of your children.

I don't want anything bad to happen to you and yours, I truly don't. But maybe one day someone will break in whose not just interested in the TV and then you'll wish you had a little more barbarian in ya. I bet those kids at V-tech wish one of their fellow students or teachers had been carrying concealed.

Originally Posted by captain castle

...you REFUSE to see any shred of reason in having, maintaining, and eventually maybe having to use, firearms in the defense of your children.

Okay, first I had to point out that no-one here would actually kill over a TV set, now I have to correct YOU. She never "refused to see" what you are claiming here. In fact I think earlier in the thread she said that she understands using a firearm in defense of human life, and has no problem with it:

Originally Posted by solecistic

If a person is directly threatening human life, that is another matter entirely.

Originally Posted by solecistic

If none of you would shoot someone for stealing from you, then we have no beef, really.

How much more obvious could it be that she has no problem with using a gun for defense of life, and only objects to the idea of using it for defense of property? How on Earth did you reach the conclusion that she "refuses to see any shred of reason" in the idea of defending family members' lives? Where did you even get that from?

I wish we could have a gun debate with both sides talking past each other, overlooking what was actually said, and putting words into each others' mouths.

Originally Posted by Syme

Okay, first I had to point out that no-one here would actually kill over a TV set, now I have to correct YOU. She never "refused to see" what you are claiming here. In fact I think earlier in the thread she said that she understands using a firearm in defense of human life, and has no problem with it:





How much more obvious could it be that she has no problem with using a gun for defense of life, and only objects to the idea of using it for defense of property? How on Earth did you reach the conclusion that she "refuses to see any shred of reason" in the idea of defending family members' lives? Where did you even get that from?

I wish we could have a gun debate with both sides talking past each other, overlooking what was actually said, and putting words into each others' mouths.

You're right, I'll go ahead and retract that statement. What I meant to say was that even after I (and I think Anony did as well) said we wouldn't execute a guy for stealing our TV, but we weren't crazy for preparing for more she continued to pigeonhole us into the type of people who believe we're mavericks. I may get heated in my debates, but someone whose bias is so strong that I can't suggest having a 1911 near my bed to protect my family without coming across as a bloodthirsty noir hero really pushes my buttons. I already sent sole a PM apologizing if I came on too strong.

Just for the record, violent crime in America is a lot more common than, say, house fires, and yet people who keep fire extinguishers in their homes manage to avoid being accused of paranoia. I dunno, just a thought.

You are right that most home intruders are probably there to take possessions, not inflict mayhem. I don't think it's hard to understand, though, why many people are uncomfortable with the idea that if their home is broken into, their only recourse is to cower in helpless fear and hope that all the intruder wants is money, even if that is the more likely alternative. It's the same mentality that leads people to wear a seatbelt every time they drive even though they are unlikely to get in an accident, or to keep a fire extinguisher in the pantry even though they are unlikely to have a kitchen fire, and so forth. Keeping a gun in the home, just in case a violent intruder does show up, doesn't strike me as any more paranoid than those things. I guess paranoia is in the eye of the beholder.

The moral dimension aside, it is ILLEGAL* to use lethal force unless someone's life is in immediate danger. If someone is raping your 9-year-old daughter and you shoot them in the head, you will probably go to jail for murder. I think, thankfully, that most gun owners understand the circumstances under which they can use their guns. Certainly the statistics seem to suggest that most do.

*Except in Texas, of course


EDIT: Looking at it from outside the particular confines of the "gun issue", this is an interesting example of how people generally tend to approach improbable but highly dangerous or damaging events; i.e. those events that are very unlikely to occur, but if they do occur, are very bad. Examples might be a large asteroid hitting the planet Earth, or various forms of economic disaster, or catching rabies from a dog bite (or, say, a dangerous killer breaking into your home). When it comes to the question of how to prepare for those events, some people say "Nah, it's too unlikely, you're just being paranoid" and others say "It might happen no matter how unlikely, so it's better to err on the side of caution and be prepared". I find it interesting how different people react at this far end (in terms of probability and severity) of the risk-analysis spectrum. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of which personality types, or demographic sets, or whatever, tend to react more strongly to the probability of the threat or to it's severity, because people tend to perceive that one aspect of the threat "overrides" the other, and I wonder what predisposes someone in either direction.

Originally Posted by Syme

Just for the record, violent crime in America is a lot more common than, say, house fires, and yet people who keep fire extinguishers in their homes manage to avoid being accused of paranoia. I dunno, just a thought.

You are right that most home intruders are probably there to take possessions, not inflict mayhem. I don't think it's hard to understand, though, why many people are uncomfortable with the idea that if their home is broken into, their only recourse is to cower in helpless fear and hope that all the intruder wants is money, even if that is the more likely alternative. It's the same mentality that leads people to wear a seatbelt every time they drive even though they are unlikely to get in an accident, or to keep a fire extinguisher in the pantry even though they are unlikely to have a kitchen fire, and so forth. Keeping a gun in the home, just in case a violent intruder does show up, doesn't strike me as any more paranoid than those things. I guess paranoia is in the eye of the beholder.

The moral dimension aside, it is ILLEGAL* to use lethal force unless someone's life is in immediate danger. If someone is raping your 9-year-old daughter and you shoot them in the head, you will probably go to jail for murder. I think, thankfully, that most gun owners understand the circumstances under which they can use their guns. Certainly the statistics seem to suggest that most do.

*Except in Texas, of course


EDIT: Looking at it from outside the particular confines of the "gun issue", this is an interesting example of how people generally tend to approach improbable but highly dangerous or damaging events; i.e. those events that are very unlikely to occur, but if they do occur, are very bad. Examples might be a large asteroid hitting the planet Earth, or various forms of economic disaster, or catching rabies from a dog bite (or, say, a dangerous killer breaking into your home). When it comes to the question of how to prepare for those events, some people say "Nah, it's too unlikely, you're just being paranoid" and others say "It might happen no matter how unlikely, so it's better to err on the side of caution and be prepared". I find it interesting how different people react at this far end (in terms of probability and severity) of the risk-analysis spectrum. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of which personality types, or demographic sets, or whatever, tend to react more strongly to the probability of the threat or to it's severity, because people tend to perceive that one aspect of the threat "overrides" the other, and I wonder what predisposes someone in either direction.

For the record I think Utah has the castle doctrine (Ironically named) where as long as you think someone is about to commit a felony in your home lethal force is acceptable. I'm not 100% sure, and I'm sure that there are times when lethal force will get you put away, but I am reasonably certain that the castle doctrine protects most usages of lethal force in your home, even if slightly unnecessary. Just thought I'd point that out.

Edit - Your edit brings up a really good point and I've often wondered that myself.

Hmm, I thought "castle doctrine" laws mean that you don't have any duty to retreat when threatened with deadly force in your own home, and can respond in like kind without first attempting to get away?

EDIT: Oops, nope, you are right.

"Utah Criminal Code
76-2-405. Force in defense of habitation.
(1) A person is justified in using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's unlawful entry into or attack upon his habitation; however, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if:
(a) the entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by stealth, and he reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person, dwelling, or being in the habitation and he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence; or
(b) he reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony in the habitation and that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.
(2) The person using force or deadly force in defense of habitation is presumed for the purpose of both civil and criminal cases to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if the entry or attempted entry is unlawful and is made or attempted by use of force, or in a violent and tumultuous manner, or surreptitiously or by stealth, or for the purpose of committing a felony."

It looks like several other states have similar arrangements. That is interesting.

Originally Posted by Syme

Hmm, I thought "castle doctrine" laws mean that you don't have any duty to retreat when threatened with deadly force in your own home, and can respond in like kind without first attempting to get away?

EDIT: Oops, nope, you are right.

"Utah Criminal Code
76-2-405. Force in defense of habitation.
(1) A person is justified in using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's unlawful entry into or attack upon his habitation; however, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if:
(a) the entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by stealth, and he reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person, dwelling, or being in the habitation and he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence; or
(b) he reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony in the habitation and that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.
(2) The person using force or deadly force in defense of habitation is presumed for the purpose of both civil and criminal cases to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if the entry or attempted entry is unlawful and is made or attempted by use of force, or in a violent and tumultuous manner, or surreptitiously or by stealth, or for the purpose of committing a felony."

It looks like several other states have similar arrangements. That is interesting.

Kind of weird, right? I mean, I'm glad I'm protected in case I happen to use lethal force(Ie: he dies from what I thought was an incapacitating shot) and it's technically not the right situation for it. I like the idea in general but it seems to be a bit too broad.

Oh well, score one for the paranoid mavericks.

Originally Posted by John Galt

FYI: If you shoot at someone it's lethal force no matter where you hit them, where you intended to hit them, or what type of shot you wanted it to be (and I'll ignore for this post the silliness of the whole concept of "incapacitating shot" when it comes to a live firefight).

Bottom line: discharge of a firearm is always lethal force. Period.

Well thanks for pointing that out, but I refuse to believe you'll be treated the same by a judge/prosecution if you tell them you fired into the guys chest and face exhausting the magazine, or you shot him in the leg in an attempt to put him down and he happened to bleed to death.

Regardless, I'm safe bitches. Castle Doctrine ftw

Originally Posted by Syme

Actually the latter situation is not necessarily better. A prosecutor can really go to town on you if you admit that you knowingly used what is legally lethal force (i.e. fired a gun) in a situation where you didn't believe lethal force was justified (since you didn't shoot to kill). You are basically saying "I used lethal force even though I didn't think it was necessary to kill", which amounts to handing the prosecution your ass on a plate. You should NEVER EVER "shoot him in the leg in an attempt to put him down" or anything like that; that's TV nonsense, it has no place in real life. If you shoot at all, shoot for the center of mass. Every professional self-defense instructor will tell you exactly the same thing.

So what you're saying is Tv and movies has lied to me?!?

Originally Posted by Syme

Actually the latter situation is not necessarily better. A prosecutor can really go to town on you if you admit that you knowingly used what is legally lethal force (i.e. fired a gun) in a situation where you didn't believe lethal force was justified (since you didn't shoot to kill). You are basically saying "I used lethal force even though I didn't think it was necessary to kill", which amounts to handing the prosecution your ass on a plate. You should NEVER EVER "shoot him in the leg in an attempt to put him down" or anything like that; that's TV nonsense, it has no place in real life. If you shoot at all, shoot for the center of mass. Every professional self-defense instructor will tell you exactly the same thing.

QFT

If you are in a situation where you need to shoot, then it is a life and death situation, and you need to be shooting to kill. Dont give warning shots, or shoot in the leg. Ive actually heard of a criminal sueing a homeowner for shooting him and the homeowner had to pay all kinds of money to pay his medical bills, pain and suffering, etc etc. BS if you ask me, but thats the way the legal system works sometimes.

Originally Posted by fm2176

If a firearm does not scare away an intruder, there are other options besides just shooting an unarmed person.

Not always. If someone's in your house illegally, you've brandished your firearm, and they still charge you... well that's what we "on the job" call an "articulable fact" that this individual intends to do you harm, and is intent enough on doing it that he's charging someone threatening to respond with gunfire.

In that situation, whether he's armed or not, I'd dump a mag.

ETA: Of course, as a law enforcement officer, I have no duty to retreat. If you're not in a Castle Doctrine state, your mileage may vary.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Not always. If someone's in your house illegally, you've brandished your firearm, and they still charge you... well that's what we "on the job" call an "articulable fact" that this individual intends to do you harm, and is intent enough on doing it that he's charging someone threatening to respond with gunfire.

In that situation, whether he's armed or not, I'd dump a mag.

ETA: Of course, as a law enforcement officer, I have no duty to retreat. If you're not in a Castle Doctrine state, your mileage may vary.

Also it kinda brings up some curiosities about what does he know that I don't if he's willing to charge me unarmed while I have a gun.

If I am pointing a gun at someone and he charges me, he is getting shot. Im not trying to get in a ground struggle and fight over a gun and possibly get shot. And the duty to retreat law does not matter there, because you could not retreat, he was charging you.

Originally Posted by Anonymous D

If I am pointing a gun at someone and he charges me, he is getting shot. Im not trying to get in a ground struggle and fight over a gun and possibly get shot. And the duty to retreat law does not matter there, because you could not retreat, he was charging you.

You may sometimes have trouble convincing a judge/jury of this, depending on the circumstances. "He was coming at me" does not necessarily abrogate your duty to retreat in jurisdictions that have such laws; after all, if you could lawfully ignore the duty to retreat just because someone was coming at you, the requirement wouldn't be very meaningful at all, since a great many possible self-defense scenarios almost necessarily entail someone coming at you. Again, it all depends on the specifics of the circumstances and how plausible the retreat option was in those circumstances.

We dont have the duty to retreat law in Louisiana. We have the "stand your ground" law here.

Plus the duty to retreat law is very broad. Alot of judges find that there is no duty to retreat when in a place you have the right to be. Such as your own home, or public property. And if you didnt have the right to be there, then you have a whole other set of problems.

Again, that is just a judges interpretation. Who knows how your judge will see it, but Im sure you have heard the old saying. Better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six.

I always wondered this.

If you live in a duty to retreat state, WHERE do you retreat to if you arent in your home. Sure there are situations where you are near a car or can run in a bar or gas station or something. But if he just keeps "coming at you" what do you do?

Originally Posted by Anonymous D

I always wondered this.

If you live in a duty to retreat state, WHERE do you retreat to if you arent in your home. Sure there are situations where you are near a car or can run in a bar or gas station or something. But if he just keeps "coming at you" what do you do?

Shoot him. Duty-to-retreat laws don't say that you must attempt to retreat and never use deadly force at all, they say that you must attempt to retreat first and can only use deadly force once it becomes apparent that retreat will not work. So if you run and he chases you, and you can't get to safety, THEN you may use deadly force. Duty-to-retreat laws say what you must do before using deadly force, not instead of using deadly force.

EDIT: In general, duty-to-retreat isn't about retreating TO a certain place (although if you are near your home, getting into it is definitely a good move), but only about getting away from the threat. So if I'm walking down the street and someone approaches me with a knife and threatens me, there's not some specific place I'm supposed to retreat TO, I'm just going to turn around and run. If he pursues and I can't get away, then out comes the LCP.