Guns on school campuses?

There was a recent bill introduced in Louisiana that would allow people to legally carry gun on campuses that have always been "Gun Free Zones"

Me, being a strong 2nd amendment supporter was very excited about this bill, but like I figured, it did not pass. So my question is this. How do YOU feel about it. Let me give you a break down of it.

In order to carry a weapon on campus, you would also have to be a CCW holder. A CCW is basically a license to carry a concealed weapon. In order to get this license, you have to pay usually around $75 for the class, then pay another $50 or $100 for a 2 or 4 year license, and when you renew, you must take the $75 class again. Now these are the going rates in LA, I dont know what they are in other states. You have to send your finger prints in to the state police for them to keep on record, and you are subject to a background check. And you must be 21 years of age and not restricted from owning a gun for any reason.

People who legally carry a concealed weapon are law abiding citizens. Im not sure how true this is, but the instructor at the class I went to told us that in the state of Louisiana, there has never been a CCW holder commit a gun crime.

Now, knowing what one has to go through in order to actually be able to carry on campus, how would you feel about it?

And to clarify, in the bill, campus was defined as an Elementary, middle school, High school, technical college, or state college. So basically, staff in K-12 schools, and once you get into colleges, thats when students can carry.

I'm very pro-gun rights, but I think this is a terrible idea.

K-12 teachers shouldn't ever need to be carrying a concealed weapon, and if they do, the school needs better security. Teachers with guns is not the answer. As far as college students carrying, as long as you have a CCW, I guess I don't see a problem with it. But K-12? Definitely not.

Why do you think K-12 teachers should not carry, but college students should be allowed? Sure there is pretty much no chance of someone shooting up a kindergarten class, but what about all the HS shooting? How do you think Colombine would have turned out if a few teachers were legally carrying guns?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymous D

Why do you think K-12 teachers should not carry, but college students should be allowed? Sure there is pretty much no chance of someone shooting up a kindergarten class, but what about all the HS shooting? How do you think Colombine would have turned out if a few teachers were legally carrying guns?

---

I think it would have been worse. Armed gunmen in a school is terrifying enough, but a full blown shootout? That would get more people killed. Besides, having a CCW doesn't make you a peace officer. Most people just wouldn't be able to handle a situation like that CCW or no. As I said, better to enforce higher security standards and leave the shootouts to the police. And how many people would one teacher get killed if he had gotten in a gunfight with school shooters? 0? 1? 10? You can't know for sure, but I wouldn't trust most teachers with a gun at school, regardless of a slip of paper telling me it's okay.

The number of people who get hit by stray bullets during a "shootout" is almost certainly going to be smaller than the number of people who get shot if gunmen are allowed to complete their rampage. The idea that cops are specially capable of handling situations like that, and most people lack that capability, doesn't really have any basis in reality; it's something that people say when they are uncomfortable with the idea of armed citizens and need some reason to disparage it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

The number of people who get hit by stray bullets during a "shootout" is almost certainly going to be smaller than the number of people who get shot if gunmen are allowed to complete their rampage. The idea that cops are specially capable of handling situations like that, and most people lack that capability, doesn't really have any basis in reality; it's something that people say when they are uncomfortable with the idea of armed citizens and need some reason to disparage it.

---

How often do cops get into full blown shootouts in packed areas? I'd imagine most of the time they would do their best to evacuate before risking a gunfight.

I don't think more guns is the solution. Whilst not causing school shootings etc, they do play a big part in enabling them. Maybe this is just me being cynical, but authorities have had a hell of a time trying to profile would be rampagers, it is a task close to impossible. The idea that doing a class/having a license means you can be trusted with a firearm in public...I know I would be uneasy with this.

How many school shootings are there in Louisiana? Is it really that common as to merit this? I know people from that part of the world love their guns, but I think this might be taking things too far. I seriously doubt that it would stop school shootings.

I need to ask...am I the only one who thinks creating a mutual climate of fear is...a slightly disturbing way to do things?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

The number of people who get hit by stray bullets during a "shootout" is almost certainly going to be smaller than the number of people who get shot if gunmen are allowed to complete their rampage. The idea that cops are specially capable of handling situations like that, and most people lack that capability, doesn't really have any basis in reality; it's something that people say when they are uncomfortable with the idea of armed citizens and need some reason to disparage it.

---

Well, you're welcome to your opinion of course, but as I said in my first post I really don't have an issue with armed citizens, I just don't think schools are the place for it. Also, what about this: Say for example, a teacher is carrying somewhere on his person. What happens if some kid who is just joking around decides to catch said teacher unawares and tries to playfully take it from him? Obviously not a smart move on the kids part, but now we have a potentially lethal situation, for absolutely no reason at all. And if you don't think a highschool kid would do this I beg to differ, I can think of several people off the top of my head who would have likely done such a thing when I was in high school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

How often do cops get into full blown shootouts in packed areas? I'd imagine most of the time they would do their best to evacuate before risking a gunfight.

---

They certainly try to, but when someone pulls a gun in a crowded place, cops have to react immediately; they can't clear the area of bystanders first. They don't get to choose when they have a gunfight. Again, the risk of a bystander being hit by a stray bullet is a much less significant one than the risk of allowing a school shooter to go on their rampage until the cops arrive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

I don't think more guns is the solution. Whilst not causing school shootings etc, they do play a big part in enabling them. Maybe this is just me being cynical, but authorities have had a hell of a time trying to profile would be rampagers, it is a task close to impossible. The idea that doing a class/having a license means you can be trusted with a firearm in public...I know I would be uneasy with this.

---

Well, it is already the case that getting a CCH license means you can be trusted with a firearm in public; the system obviously works, because CCHL holders are, statistically speaking, far more law-abiding and safe than the general public. This law would just extend that right, which already exists almost everywhere else, into schools for licensed teachers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

How many school shootings are there in Louisiana? Is it really that common as to merit this? I know people from that part of the world love their guns, but I think this might be taking things too far. I seriously doubt that it would stop school shootings.

---

The This happened in Mississippi in 1997, for what it's worth. Because the particular shooting was brief and the shooter tried to escape, the armed principal stopped him from escaping instead of stopping him during the shooting. The principle is basically the same, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gismo

I need to ask...am I the only one who thinks creating a mutual climate of fear is...a slightly disturbing way to do things?

---

It's probably a better way of doing things than trying to prevent school shootings by putting up "GUN-FREE ZONE" signs outside schools and then hoping that would-be mass murderers will abandon their plans and go home when they see the signs. And actually, it's not about creating a mutual climate of fear; it's about giving people the ability to respond to an attacker. The hope isn't that school shooters will be dissuaded by fear of an armed teacher, it's that they will be stopped by the actions of an armed teacher. I don't think there is anything disturbing about allowing people to defend themselves and those around them. What's disturbing to me is the attitude that safety is served by creating voluntary-compliance gun restrictions (e.g., the "gun-free zones" that currently exist around schools), which any reasonable person should see will be totally ignored by criminals and will, by definition, only serve to filter out non-criminal gun owners. Current school shooting countermeasures are basically the honor system; we hope that people who are willing to commit murder won't be willing to violate a gun-free school zone ordinance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinysides

Well, you're welcome to your opinion of course, but as I said in my first post I really don't have an issue with armed citizens, I just don't think schools are the place for it. Also, what about this: Say for example, a teacher is carrying somewhere on his person. What happens if some kid who is just joking around decides to catch said teacher unawares and tries to playfully take it from him? Obviously not a smart move on the kids part, but now we have a potentially lethal situation, for absolutely no reason at all. And if you don't think a highschool kid would do this I beg to differ, I can think of several people off the top of my head who would have likely done such a thing when I was in high school.

---

I think "the place for it" is any place where people are at risk of being victimized by violent crime, which sadly includes schools no matter how much we might wish otherwise. As for students grabbing them, the schools should probably require that armed teachers carry their gun in a secure concealed holster, such as an IWB type. We're certainly not talking about open (unconcealed) carry here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinysides

Well, you're welcome to your opinion of course, but as I said in my first post I really don't have an issue with armed citizens, I just don't think schools are the place for it. Also, what about this: Say for example, a teacher is carrying somewhere on his person. What happens if some kid who is just joking around decides to catch said teacher unawares and tries to playfully take it from him? Obviously not a smart move on the kids part, but now we have a potentially lethal situation, for absolutely no reason at all. And if you don't think a highschool kid would do this I beg to differ, I can think of several people off the top of my head who would have likely done such a thing when I was in high school.

---

Im not talking about open carry where everyone can see it. Im talking about CONCEALED carry. And when you CC you dont let anyone know that you have the gun.

And as far as MORE people getting killed in a shoot out. Noone can say for sure, but IMO, the shooters will concentrate on the ones returning fire in stead of continuing their rampage.

You say you are all for people carrying guns outside of schools. What are your reasons for that?

And as far as the gun being taken by some idiot student, there are holsters that actually LOCK the gun in the holster and you have to flip a switch to be able to pull it out.

Aren't campuses private property? So whatever they say goes, really. Beyond that I can't say I have an opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benzss

Aren't campuses private property? So whatever they say goes, really. Beyond that I can't say I have an opinion.

---

Private schools would be able to say what goes, but state schools like LSU would have to take down the GUN FREE ZONE signs.

I would love to see those come down. It would be like watching the Berlin Wall come down. lol
Sadly I doubt that will ever happen.

Heres another question I want to ask some of you. Do you think that someone who is planning a school shooting would rethink if they knew other people might also be carrying guns to defend themselves?

And do you think "gun free zones" such as schools and churches make them more likely to be a target?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benzss

Aren't campuses private property? So whatever they say goes, really. Beyond that I can't say I have an opinion.

---

Private schools/universities are private, but in the US, a majority of schools (both elementary/secondary and colleges) are public, operated either by the county/city (in the case of elementary and secondary schools) or the state (in the case of universities). So their no-gun policies are the result of government policy or, in some places, actual law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymous D

Heres another question I want to ask some of you. Do you think that someone who is planning a school shooting would rethink if they knew other people might also be carrying guns to defend themselves?

And do you think "gun free zones" such as schools and churches make them more likely to be a target?

---

1. I can't say with any certainty, but I doubt it. It seems like most of these would be shooters are suicidal or at least have a fatalistic mindset anyways, so I doubt they would be deterred. Besides, at my high school, there would have been someone shooting back. We had a police detachment in the school at all times consisting of two police officers.

2. No, not less likely either, but not more likely. I mean, you see a sign that says "drug free zone" does that make you want to go smoke pot there? Probably not, but at the same time it probably wouldn't deter you if you really wanted to either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinysides

1. I can't say with any certainty, but I doubt it. It seems like most of these would be shooters are suicidal or at least have a fatalistic mindset anyways, so I doubt they would be deterred. Besides, at my high school, there would have been someone shooting back. We had a police detachment in the school at all times consisting of two police officers.

---

I actually agree with this; as I said earlier, the point of allowing CCW in schools is intervention, not deterrence. I think you are right, anyone who plans to carry out a school shooting is probably not the type of person who is going to make rational self-preservation decisions.

On the topic of cops at schools, that's great where it's feasible, but if it was universally feasible, the whole school shooting thing wouldn't really even be an issue. Not every locality has a large enough police department to keep an officer at every school in the county/city at all times. My high school always had a cop at it too, but our county's police department was large and well-funded and could spare the manpower. That's not the case everywhere in the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinysides

2. No, not less likely either, but not more likely. I mean, you see a sign that says "drug free zone" does that make you want to go smoke pot there? Probably not, but at the same time it probably wouldn't deter you if you really wanted to either.

---

This is a fundamentally flawed analogy, because when you want to smoke pot you don't seek out a place where no-one else will have pot; but when you want to murder people, there IS a good reason to seek out a place where no-one else has a gun and thus no-one can defend themselves against you or stop you. The gun-free school zones are basically big advertisements saying "Guaranteed Defenseless Victims Here!", and that's particularly attractive to people who have decided that they want to kill as many people as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

This is a fundamentally flawed analogy, because when you want to smoke pot you don't seek out a place where no-one else will have pot; but when you want to murder people, there IS a good reason to seek out a place where no-one else has a gun and thus no-one can defend themselves against you or stop you. The gun-free school zones are basically big advertisements saying "Guaranteed Defenseless Victims Here!", and that's particularly attractive to people who have decided that they want to kill as many people as possible.

---

Okay, that's a good point.

Thats what I was trying to say. IMO a gun free zone is more likely to get shot up by some disturbed guy because when they do shoot up a school, their intentions are usually to kill as many people as possible and then take their own lives. It doesnt seem like they would want to risk getting shot and incapacitated, and then spend the rest of their life in jail. Or even risk getting shot before they get a chance to kill innocents.

If you were going to try and kill as many people as possible, where would you go. A school or a gun show?

Question:

For comparison, how does the fact that retailers can and obviously do carry firearms, in a similar fashion and intent as proposed for teachers (and adult students), affect the rate the rate and result of gun crimes in retail stores?

I doubt we'll be able to find statistics on that, tbh.

I wish we could fins some numbers, but since there are no statistics on people who WOULD have committed crime, then I doubt we will.

And robbing a gas station is completely different than going somewhere with the intent to kill as many people as possible before taking your own life. Most of the time when someone robs a gas station, shots arent even fired.

I think it's a good idea. The saying "When seconds count the police are just minutes away..." keeps ringing in my head. A threat could be neutralized long before the police arrive and before the second or third harmful shot is fired.

The Journal of Quantitated Criminology ran a very large study on gun bans in the US. For starters, the US is very different than other countries when it comes to gun control: The same methods do not have equal effects. In the US, gun bans have a negative (bad, not -) effect on violent crime. The wide commercial availability of weapons acts as a powerful deterrent. Also, when guns are banned, the black market starts selling them in much higher quantities. This means that mentally ill people can buy guns more easily.

I believe it is obvious that younger people should not be trusted with weaponry, and I see no reason why they need to be concealed on campus (in a college campus in this case). However, being allowed to open carry pistol on a campus could be an effective deterrent as long as the owners of the guns take many classes and know what they are doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kittens!

I believe it is obvious that younger people should not be trusted with weaponry, and I see no reason why they need to be concealed on campus (in a college campus in this case). However, being allowed to open carry pistol on a campus could be an effective deterrent as long as the owners of the guns take many classes and know what they are doing.

---

The concealed carry vs. open carry debate is a whole nother thread. But this is what it boils down to. Lets say a shooter wants to take out a few people. He walks into a class, sees noone open carrying, and kills every single one of them. Or maybe he sees a person or two carrying a gun, they will be the first two people he will take out.

VS. a gunman walking into a class and looking around, seeing no guns, and starts to shoot. One person with a concealed weapon is able to get the jump on him and only a few lives are lost compared to many.

As far as younger people not being trusted with weaponry, what would you consider younger? I would consider anyone old enough to get a concealed weapons license old enough.

And another thing about open vs. concealed carry. You dont have to get a license to open carry, for concealed carry, you have to go to an 8 hour class (In my state) and take a shooting proficiency test. Then you have to send your fingerprints, a photo, documents, etc to the state police and they have to issue you a license. Compared to open carry where anyone who is 21 and can own a gun can do it with ni training whatsoever.

You HAVE to be 21 to carry a weapon concealed or open. (In Louisiana and most states). So the young people not being allowed to carry guns is already taken care of.

When I said young I was referring to high school sophomores and lower as a rough guideline. (16 years of age or so)

Concealed carry has its uses in keeping the government from having too much power, but it has no place on a college campus. Visual weapons would be a more effective deterrent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kittens!

When I said young I was referring to high school sophomores and lower as a rough guideline. (16 years of age or so)

---

Those people are nowhere near being able to carry a handgun, though. You have to be 21 to buy a pistol in the US, let alone carry one around. So concealed carry on campuses has absolutely nothing to do with high school sophomores. It has to do with teachers/professors, and upperclassmen in college.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kittens!

Concealed carry has its uses in keeping the government from having too much power, but it has no place on a college campus. Visual weapons would be a more effective deterrent.

---

I disagree with this. Open carry tends to freak people out, and this would be doubly true on a college campus. The only place you can really get away with open carry is in small rural towns in gun-loving parts of the country where everyone is, to be frank, rednecks. There's no way it would be even remotely possible to open-carry on a college campus without freaking the hell out of everyone and causing a huge scene everywhere you go. That aside, why do you feel that it would be a more effective deterrent? If anything, I would think that it's more effective for a potential campus shooter to know that anyone could be armed and to be unable to tell who is and who isn't. If he can visually tell who's armed, he's going to quickly catch on to the fact that very few people actually are.

There's a reason that concealed carry is much, much, much more popular as a self-defense measure than open carry, even though open carry is theoretically easier in most jurisdictions. That reason has very little to do with "keeping the government from having too much power".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

There's a reason that concealed carry is much, much, much more popular as a self-defense measure than open carry, even though open carry is theoretically easier in most jurisdictions. That reason has very little to do with "keeping the government from having too much power".

---

oh i don't know about that. we residents in and around dc have been concealed carrying handguns for years, picking off government officials that get out of line.

I was going to say pretty much the same thing syme said. You have to be 21 to buy and carry and gun, and open carry freaks people out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymous D

I was going to say pretty much the same thing syme said. You have to be 21 to buy and carry and gun, and open carry freaks people out.

---

If I knew that concealed carry was allowed on campus, I would be freaked out by everyone, because anyone could be packing a glock under their jacket. Not to mention that a school shooter would not attack if he saw armed people walking around. He might take his chances if all guns were concealed.

Next, concealed carry is for protection from government. It is used to prevent widespread arrests of armed citizens. If you think such a theory is ridiculous, then you should not support gun rights at all, because gun rights are meant to keep some power with the people, and to prevent total government control.

Of course when it comes to what the school shooter thinks about threats, we are speculating, so I think we tie on that part of the debate. I wonder what a criminal expert would say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kittens!

Next, concealed carry is for protection from government. It is used to prevent widespread arrests of armed citizens. If you think such a theory is ridiculous, then you should not support gun rights at all, because gun rights are meant to keep some power with the people, and to prevent total government control.

---

Hhahahahaha. This isn't the 18th century. Oh dear, it is actually rather scary to hear people say stuff like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kittens!

If I knew that concealed carry was allowed on campus, I would be freaked out by everyone, because anyone could be packing a glock under their jacket. Not to mention that a school shooter would not attack if he saw armed people walking around. He might take his chances if all guns were concealed.

---

So you're saying that you would be "freaked out by everyone" if you knew you were in a place where concealed carry was allowed. Does this mean that you are "freaked out by everyone" anytime you go to a grocery store, library, coffee shop, movie theater, or basically anywhere EXCEPT a government building, school, or bar? Because under the laws of most states, concealed carry is already allowed in all of those places; almost anywhere you go, anyone you see could be packing a glock under their jacket. I guess you are just freaked out all the time?

Even if you are a total nutbar and get freaked out anytime someone around you might have a concealed weapon (e.g., almost always), this is not representative of how most people respond to the issue. Most people living in shall-issue states somehow manage not to spend their days constantly freaked out by the fact that someone nearby might be packing; yet if you walk into the supermarket with a gun openly carried on your hip, even in a fairly conservative shall-issue state, I guarantee you that some dumb soccer-mom WILL freak out and call the cops. That kind of hassle will follow you everywhere you go if you try to open carry. It would certainly occur if people tried to open carry on college campuses. That's why open carry is widely recognized as a retarded idea by most gun owners, and concealed carry is the way to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kittens

Next, concealed carry is for protection from government. It is used to prevent widespread arrests of armed citizens. If you think such a theory is ridiculous, then you should not support gun rights at all, because gun rights are meant to keep some power with the people, and to prevent total government control.

---

I do think such a theory is ridiculous. What is your basis for making this argument? Certainly such goals don't motivate most CCW holders. They also definitely did not inform the lawmaking processes that led to the current widespread state of shall-issue CCW regimes. What are you basing this on? Who says? If concealed carry is used to prevent "widespread arrest of armed citizens", then why don't the states that still don't allow CCW have a problem with such widespread arrests? Are you claiming that before the spread of shall-issue CCW regimes, there was a big problem with such arrests, but that the growth in CCW availability curtailed this problem? Explain your argument here, because frankly, it seems pretty absurd and baseless on it's face. CCW is for protection from crooks, not the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kittens

Of course when it comes to what the school shooter thinks about threats, we are speculating, so I think we tie on that part of the debate. I wonder what a criminal expert would say?

---

What we do know is that self-defense experts widely agree that concealed carry is much, much better idea than open carry, for a variety of reasons. So I think it's safe to say that allowing CCW on campus is a much, much better idea than allowing open carry only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

What are you basing this on? Who says?

---

i think this person thinks that all gun rights advocates are members of anti-government militant groups holed up in the rocky mountains, as this what kittens! is saying is pretty much in line with their ideology.

of course, the vast majority of gun rights advocates are not members of anti-govnerment militant groups holded up in the rocky mountaints...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kittens!

Next, concealed carry is for protection from government. It is used to prevent widespread arrests of armed citizens. If you think such a theory is ridiculous, then you should not support gun rights at all, because gun rights are meant to keep some power with the people, and to prevent total government control.

---

WHAT?
Dude where are you hearing this stuff? Im a HUGE 2nd ammendment supporter, and CC is NOT for protection from the Gov. CC is for protection from criminals on the street. Do you honestly think someone will pull a gun on cops if even if they KNOW they are being wrongfully arrested? Thats just asking for trouble. The 2nd amendment was originally created to give the people power to keep the gov. from becoming a tyrannical one. Not CC.

As far as a shooter not doing anything because he sees a guy with a gun, and this is purely speculation, but realisticly, most people, including myself, would not want to open carry. Which would make the number of people with a gun very low, if any at all. So it would be no problem for an active shooter to focus on just the armed people and take them out even before they can react. Then he would continue on with the killing or unarmed people.

For example. Cops open carry, if someone is robbing a bank, the FIRST people they will take care of is the ones that are a VISIBLE threat. If there is a plain clothed officer with a hidden gun, that gives him the ability to blend in and look like a non-threat.

Personally, I don't think you should bring guns to school unless you bring enough to share with the rest of the class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

i think this person thinks that all gun rights advocates are members of anti-government militant groups holed up in the rocky mountains, as this what kittens! is saying is pretty much in line with their ideology.

of course, the vast majority of gun rights advocates are not members of anti-govnerment militant groups holded up in the rocky mountaints...

---

Right, but even so, he's talking specifically about concealed carry of a handgun, not about gun rights in general. So what he's saying is basically absurd, and reveals that he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about and knows nothing about CC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Right, but even so, he's talking specifically about concealed carry of a handgun, not about gun rights in general. So what he's saying is basically absurd, and reveals that he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about and knows nothing about CC.

---

Oh don't get me wrong, I agree with you 100%. That was just my attempt to get into the mind of this omega semi-moron here, and it hurt my head :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gorefinger

Personally, I think don't think you should bring guns to school unless you bring enough to share with the rest of the class.

---

This made me lol, and remember the old elementary school days. (should see the look on a teachers face when ya pull a big bag of candy out of ya back pack to "share with the rest of the class")

Seriously though I gotta agree with annony that open carry tends to freak people out. Also only concealed is allowed in SC with a permit. I think if other people in a college class had went thru the training to get there permit and all that i'd be perfectly comfortable setting there with them armed.

As far as k-12 only the teachers and staff would be applicable under current CWP laws because of age. I do support there right to carry with a permit. My high school also had 2 police officers full time and thats all fine and dandy. However there office was on one end of the building about a 2-3 minute walk in empty hallways. If shit hit the fan and bullets started flying at the opposite end of the building and or upstairs the halls would be crowded with people running there ass off heading for the exits making it much harder for the police officers to respond. An armed teacher could easily bring an end to the situation long before the cops could get there.

I would say that cops in a school building will generally be able to respond in time. It might be a 2-3 minute walk to the other end of the building, but if they are responding to gunfire, they sure as shit won't be walking; a 2-3 minute walk is like a 30 second run. I suppose if the shooter(s) happens to start shooting in the very same room where a teacher happens to be packing, then the teacher would be able to respond before the cops managed to run over, but generally, having cops stationed in schools is a pretty sure-fire defense against school shooters. The real issue, and the real reason that allowing teachers to CC might be helpful, is that in many localities it is not practical to permanently station a couple of cops at every school. In populous counties/cities that type of duty can take up literally hundreds of officers every day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

I would say that cops in a school building will generally be able to respond in time. It might be a 2-3 minute walk to the other end of the building, but if they are responding to gunfire, they sure as shit won't be walking; a 2-3 minute walk is like a 30 second run. I suppose if the shooter(s) happens to start shooting in the very same room where a teacher happens to be packing, then the teacher would be able to respond before the cops managed to run over, but generally, having cops stationed in schools is a pretty sure-fire defense against school shooters. The real issue, and the real reason that allowing teachers to CC might be helpful, is that in many localities it is not practical to permanently station a couple of cops at every school. In populous counties/cities that type of duty can take up literally hundreds of officers every day.

---

It might be a 30 second run if the halls are empty if everyone is running scared for there life its gonna be a bit harder to get thru the crowd, somewhat akin to going the wrong way down the streets with the running of the bulls. Even if they made it in 30 seconds, it takes very little time to unload a full magazine of ammo into a class room full of students and by then it will be a little late. Having someone that can respond properly right there right then could be a good solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jojo

It might be a 30 second run if the halls are empty if everyone is running scared for there life its gonna be a bit harder to get thru the crowd, somewhat akin to going the wrong way down the streets with the running of the bulls. Even if they made it in 30 seconds, it takes very little time to unload a full magazine of ammo into a class room full of students and by then it will be a little late. Having someone that can respond properly right there right then could be a good solution.

---

Hmmm, maybe, but you should also bear in mind that even if ES/HS teachers are allowed to CCW, most of them won't--it's not like there's going to be an armed teacher in every class, so an armed teacher responding to a shooting is probably going to have the same problems getting to the scene that a cop would. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it--the more people around to possibly intervene in a shooting, the better--but what I'm saying is that when schools already have cops stationed at them, armed teachers become decidedly less important as a safety measure. Again, the real issue is that it's often not practical to keep cops at all the schools all the time.

Also, school shootings usually don't produce a flood of people crowding into the halls. The regular procedure is for teachers to keep their students in the class room and try to lock/block the door.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Also, school shootings usually don't produce a flood of people crowding into the halls. The regular procedure is for teachers to keep their students in the class room and try to lock/block the door.

---

Yep. And I dont know about you, but if I hear shooting out in the hall, or another class down the hall, the last place I want to go is in the hall. Im going out a window.

Unless Im in one of my classes on the 3rd story. Then Im wishing CC on campus was legal.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

Maybe it's unfair to call all gun lovers paranoid, but I don't know if it's entirely "naive." The truth is, there are a lot of loudmouthed nutjobs who claim to represent gun owners. Maybe you're not one of them. I have lived in Conway, AR for the past four years, where loving guns is kind of part of the culture. At first, I found it really distasteful. It seemed to me that loving guns was loving death or injury. I realize now that this concept is flawed, of course, but even now that I've been somewhat immersed, I still find this cavalier, 'no-criminal-ain't-gon'-git-me-afore-I-git-him-first' attitude to be a little disturbing when I come across it.

Hunters and sport shooters are completely inoffensive to me. They don't bother me one bit. Those people typically are taught to shoot at a very young age. They're the most responsible gun owners imaginable. My boyfriend is one of them. But the people who go on and on about guns being for "self-defense" are a different breed, and they tend to get really into how deadly their weapons are, and they do sometimes seem to be a little paranoid. Yes, there is anecdotal evidence that having a gun for self-defense can stop crime from happening to you, if you're exceedingly well-trained and calm and smart. But when it turns into a pissing contest - when it's more about how lethal your weapon is and you're buying silencers online or laser scopes, and your gun collection is full of guns solely made for killing people, it's just kind of sick, I find. No, maybe you're not a serial killer and no, maybe you'll never hurt somebody, but I still feel uncomfortable around you because you're just too into it. It feels like having weapons made for killing other people should be treated with more quiet reverence, but that's just my opinion and I wouldn't say anybody should make laws based on it.

I don't care for guns, personally. I have no desire to own one and take no real pleasure out of shooting them at a shooting range. That doesn't mean I think other people shouldn't be able to. But the right to bear arms was never really about shooting deer or skeet or even about stopping a rapist from manhandling your wife in an alley, it was about having the right to form a militia and fight against your own government if it ever returned to the tyrannical ways of the evil British government, etc etc etc. At least, that is the understanding I have after speaking with numerous gun collectors, historians, and political scientists who like to go shoot gallons of milk on the farm. To those folks, guns are to be highly respected, but not glorified. I feel much safer around those people than I do around people who get riled up about their right to defend their property. Not because I think you're going to shoot me, but because I think you're just a little crazy. It's just an opinion.

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 :solepat:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymous D

And if someone broke in my house, Id grab my deadliest weapons. Period. Im going for my AR or my .45 with hollow points..

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by captain castle

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

---

No, it's insane to me that you'd want to protect mere property so badly that you'd employ deadly force. If a person is directly threatening human life, that is another matter entirely. If you wake up in the night and someone is jacking your television, I don't see why you need to shoot them, especially not with your "deadliest weapons."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solecistic

No, it's insane to me that you'd want to protect mere property so badly that you'd employ deadly force. If a person is directly threatening human life, that is another matter entirely. If you wake up in the night and someone is jacking your television, I don't see why you need to shoot them, especially not with your "deadliest weapons."

---

Sole, I don't think anyone here has said that they would be willing to take human life in order to protect their television set.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

Sole, I don't think anyone here has said that they would be willing to take human life in order to protect their television set.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solecistic

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

---

Quote:

---

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. :(

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

The insane part is where you (apparently) think that if someone has broken into my house and is stealing my TV set that I should not only assume that's all they're there to do, but also that I should stake my life on that assumption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Galt

The insane part is where you (apparently) think that if someone has broken into my house and is stealing my TV set that I should not only assume that's all they're there to do, but also that I should stake my life on that assumption.

---

That's fair. I suppose if someone is in your house and he has your TV, you really wouldn't know what else he would be willing to do. I'll give you that.

The reality is, this whole thing got started when someone in this thread mentioned that gun-lovers seem paranoid and some gun-lovers flipped out over that. Well, honestly, I do think it's paranoid to believe that you need a gun for when your house inevitably gets broken into by someone who is there for the express purpose of doing your family physical harm.

I mean, sure, a serial killer could be going on a spree in your neighbourhood and having a gun could save your life in that situation, but what are the odds of that really happening? What are the odds that someone is ever going to break into your house to kill you, assuming you're not a drug trafficker or arms dealer? As far as I'm aware, if a criminal is in your house in the middle of the night, he's probably there to steal your shit, not cut you up. I don't know, this idea that you need a gun in your house to protect yourself from crazed lunatics does seem a little paranoid. Not paranoid like did-we-land-on-the-moon paranoid, but just...something a little beyond rational cautiousness.

Now, I mentioned to castle in a PM that I think the fundamental difference here is that I just think it's wrong to lethally shoot somebody unless someone's life is literally in immediate danger. If you found a guy raping your nine year old daughter, shooting him in the head would not be okay. If you found a guy with a knife to her throat, shooting him in the head would be a lot closer to okay. In either situation, I think the right thing to do is incapacitate without ending life. But when there is a direct threat to another person's life, it is understandable that you would take whatever shot you could get - and if that was the man's face, so be it. If you can truly tell me that with a gun in your hands in an escalated, adrenaline-soaked situation, you could make that call, and you could rationally decide not to end another man's life no matter what heinous thing he is doing to your property or to your family, then I think you should be able to have a gun in your house. Yeah, I still think you're paranoid, but I also think you can handle the responsibility.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by captain castle

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

We've had a prowler in this neighborhood, stealing things and shining lights through windows. Years back I would have loaded the shotgun and waited for an excuse. Now I think I will just setup a counter recon OP a few times a week in the early am. No need to shoot when you can spook, so these OPs will have the objective of convincing whoever that this neighborhood is not worth visiting. Already have passive security measures around the house, and my squad of cardboard Soldiers guarding the windows have scared the neighbors a few times. Nothing like an early morning look around only to see a human figure staring at you. Which may explain why I'm only missing a couple cans of bad gas from the back of the house and nothing in the garage.

I have plenty of firearms and will use one if necessary to defend myself or loved ones. My property is another matter, though I have learned from first hand experience that a show of force is often all that is necessary. If a firearm does not scare away an intruder, there are other options besides just shooting an unarmed person. If they are armed and make it life or death, it all changes. I'm not a cop and I have no desire to get caught up in the legal system, but I do believe in defending myself and my family.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by captain castle

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?!?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by captain castle

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.

---

I'd say it's pretty unlikely that he secretly knows some unstoppable technique which will enable him to prevail in that situation. More likely is that he is not, at that moment, making a rational self-preservation decision, for whatever reason.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymous D

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.

---

Yeah, obviously what I said only applies in duty-to-retreat states; you're fortunate to live in a stand-your-ground state. And obviously even if you were in a duty-to-retreat state, you'd have no duty to retreat in your own home (I'm pretty sure that all duty-to-retreat states have that proviso). But when it comes to public property such as streets, sidewalks, parks, etc., I'm not aware of any precedent about waiving duty to retreat. If you don't have a duty to retreat when attacked in the street, then where WOULD you have such a duty? Only in places where you "have no right to be"? If you are aware of some case law supporting this assertion, I'd like to see it, but I'm pretty sure there isn't much. Because you have a "right to be" almost any place that isn't either posted private property, or off-limits government property. Generally your duty to retreat is waived only in your home, and sometimes in your car or workplace.

Anyhow, what I was saying is that just because you are being approached by your attacker doesn't mean the duty to retreat (assuming one exists in the first place) is waived, because the whole point of retreat is to get away from someone who is coming at you.

But yes, at the end of it all, there is a lot of merit in that old saying.

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?

Quote:

---

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.

You have an LCP? How do you like it? I've been thinking about picking up a LCR. For CC. I handled one at a gunshow and I really liked it.

Pretty big fan of the LCP, I used to have a P3AT but replaced it fairly recently because the LCP's fit/finish and general quality is a bit higher. It's basically a somewhat nicer P3AT. The only thing to bear in mind is that there was a recall to fix a firing-when-dropped issue, so if you look for one, make sure it's a post-recall model.

I'd actually love to pick up an LCR too, they're really appealing to me.

I heard about the recall issue. I don't think I could get a LCP though. I told myself I'd never get a .380 for self defense.

Ah, but in a Holdster or other wallet-type holster in your back pocket, it's really incredibly comfy/easy to carry. I think that with good hollowpoints you can be confident in it.

Yea. I held one and I loved the size. I just always saw the .380 as a "9MM short" lol. Ill probably end up getting the LCR though. .38 Spcl +P has some serious power. And the LCP only holds one more round. I need to look into some .380 ballistics though. Never really looked into them, and we have an OLD small Beretta .380 in the house. Ive shot it and it was pretty easy to shoot.

You'll probably be looking at 90-100 grain bullets at around 1000 fps, giving about 200 ft.-lbs. ME. Definitely not as much as 9x19mm but it's generally agreed to be sufficient for self-defense (albeit about the smallest round that is). And it is definitely a "9mm short"; here in the states we call it .380, but the Europeans call it 9mm Corto or 9mm Kurz, both of which literally mean "9mm Short".

EDIT: Whoa we're way off topic in AI now, this stuff belongs in Great Outdoors. Let's start a thread there if we want to talk anymore about CCW calibers and such.

Quote:

---

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.

---

I was just stirring the pot a little. Anyone charging a person with a weapon trained on them deserves to be shot as they obviously intend to inflict as much damage on you as they can. Even if they are unarmed a couple seconds and some luck/skill is all they need to turn the tables. The other SAW gunner in my squad lit up an old man in Iraq. He was armed with an AK, but his odds were about the same as an unarmed burglar facing an armed citizen. After all, he had two automatic weapons pointed at him, not to mention a few M4s and M203s. Come to find out he had panicked and was not trying to harm us. Oh well.

While I am not a LEO, living in a very pro-military area with more than its share of problems (especially meth), I doubt I would have too much to worry about in any case. I have my own ROE, refined through years in cities and influenced by previous life or death situations overseas. Also, one of the few upsides to being a Recruiter is that I meet many law enforcement and legal professionals and local politicians. Unfortunately as I don't recruit in my parish I have not made many contacts in the immediate area. A short trip to Livingston one day will solve that. I make a point to do what I can for everyone from the mayor to the police chief to the Sheriff, am a member of the Chamber of Commerce and otherwise strive to please everyone I meet. That is not only part of my job, but also ensures that should a need arise I've got people who can attest to my integrity, honesty and being an outstanding member of the community. That, coupled with eight years of honorable military service and a clean background, should aid me so long as I don't screw the pooch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymous D

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

---

Good to know that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fm2176

The other SAW gunner in my squad lit up an old man in Iraq. He was armed with an AK, but his odds were about the same as an unarmed burglar facing an armed citizen. After all, he had two automatic weapons pointed at him, not to mention a few M4s and M203s. Come to find out he had panicked and was not trying to harm us. Oh well.

---

Honestly, this shit is disturbing.

Not that it happens under those circumstances; it was probably unavoidable. And not even that you don't seem particularly upset by it. Just the mere existence of that whole fucked up situation is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrShrike

Honestly, this shit is disturbing.

Not that it happens under those circumstances; it was probably unavoidable. And not even that you don't seem particularly upset by it. Just the mere existence of that whole fucked up situation is wrong.

---

He lived, the medic patched him up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

I'd say it's pretty unlikely that he secretly knows some unstoppable technique which will enable him to prevail in that situation. More likely is that he is not, at that moment, making a rational self-preservation decision, for whatever reason.

---

Not according to that one girl on LWS whose husband would CQC with suicide bombers

Personally, I think that guns shouldn't be allowed on school campuses, even by school teachers. It doesn't make sense. At a school near me, this happened: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BAAT19CUPM.DTL
No guns or anything were involved; just a tackle.

If guns were allowed on college campuses by all the students, then even more fights would arise, because of the number of guns on campus; simple rivalries and such would turn violent. Just my 2 cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by siXtheleMent

Personally, I think that guns shouldn't be allowed on school campuses, even by school teachers. It doesn't make sense. At a school near me, this happened: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BAAT19CUPM.DTL
No guns or anything were involved; just a tackle.

If guns were allowed on college campuses by all the students, then even more fights would arise, because of the number of guns on campus; simple rivalries and such would turn violent. Just my 2 cents.

---

So what do you think would have happened if the guy with the pipe bombs had a gun too? Do you think he would have been tackled so easily?

And why dont you read the thread before posting uninformed shit. Not "all the students" would be able to carry guns. You would have to have a valid CCW permit, which means you have to be 21, take a live fire, 8 hr class, and be legally able to even own a gun. So in HS and below, staff would be the only ones that could legally carry, and only if they went through the CCW class, paid the fee, and got the permit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymous D

So what do you think would have happened if the guy with the pipe bombs had a gun too? Do you think he would have been tackled so easily?

And why dont you read the thread before posting uninformed shit. Not "all the students" would be able to carry guns. You would have to have a valid CCW permit, which means you have to be 21, take a live fire, 8 hr class, and be legally able to even own a gun. So in HS and below, staff would be the only ones that could legally carry, and only if they went through the CCW class, paid the fee, and got the permit.

---

We should make this thread, and have a few replies, and then whenever someone posts something to the effect of "Everyone would have guns" or "I know kung fu" then it's an auto ban. Sort of like a speed trap for stupidity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by siXtheleMent

If guns were allowed on college campuses by all the students, then even more fights would arise, because of the number of guns on campus; simple rivalries and such would turn violent. Just my 2 cents.

---

Before you attempt to offer commentary on what would happen if CCW was allowed on college campuses, you should understand how CCW works and who is allowed to do it. Furthermore, if CCW causes simple rivalries to turn violent, why don't we see this happening anywhere that CCW is currently allowed? You do know that people in most states are already allowed to carry almost everywhere except government buildings and schools, right? So why aren't they already gunning each other down over these petty fights, and why do you feel that they would begin to do so if carry rights were extended to college campuses? Do you think that being on a college campus somehow makes an otherwise law-abiding person more likely to kill over a small dispute?