This is why I support CCW

The problem is, the rest of the world has the black market. It wouldn't matter how much we tried to disarm the nation, there are always those who could somehow smuggle or simply manufacture their own guns...Remember the last time we tried a nationwide ban on something popular? (Prohibition)
 
Gator said:
Raise the cost of going to VT and all other colleges by $5,000.00 a year per Student and hire Well Armed, Well Trained, Well Equiped, and Well Paid Campus Police.
Raise the cost by $10,000.00 a year per Student and add Bulletproof Doors with automatic locks so Students need buzzed into the Classroom after class starts, and the same doors at the Dorms.

If Parents truly care about their kids safety then they will come up with the extra money, or just make Student Loans accessible to cover the increase.

Problem solved, and no Laws need changed.
Click to expand...

No, the problem is solved when the individual has the legal means to defend himself. Until then, passive measures such as those you propose merely make the assault difficult, not impossible.

And anyway, to refute your point just a bit, the laws are already there to ALLOW people to defend themselves. The laws that are written are those that LIMIT that ability. If the populace is armed, the pissants do not attack, or they surrender/run away at the first opportunity.
 
Are you saing there needs to be a Law where every Citizen must be Armed 24/7 in the United States of America?..... or only at School?
What if they were carjacked on the way to School? or the Store they shop in after School was robbed?

Many Laws will no doubt need to be changed.... but, I like the way you think.

Hopefully if your plan is taken to heart by the United States Government there will be no need for large Police Departments, which will be a good thing in America, in my own opinion.
There will also be no need for a large Standing Army.... as the Fully Armed Population will just be called up when need be to protect America, also a good thing if you ask me, and the way things are supposed to work in the United States of America from the Founding Fathers.

When do you think your plan can be put into full force?
 
No. Your argument regarding no need for a standing army is a cogent as one would from me stating that children who play with firecrackers are ready to perform, as you recently put it, "...level 3 EOD..." It takes people with the time and ability to submit themselves to military training to perform the duties of a standing army.

Regarding not needing police forces: It is just as silly to suppose that untrained personnel could determine who killed someone or stole property or any number of other crimes. The police are not there to prevent crime; they are there to begin the punishment part of it.

I view an armed populace as a benefit to society. There is no law that you must be armed, just that in following the law you MAY be armed. Armed citizens can and have (quite often) stopped crimes from being committed. Do some research, and determine the arrest rate of those legally carrying concealed weapons, then compare it to that of the general populace. It should prove edifying.
 
Sapper Mike said:
No. Your argument regarding no need for a standing army is a cogent as one would from me stating that children who play with firecrackers are ready to perform, as you recently put it, "...level 3 EOD..." It takes people with the time and ability to submit themselves to military training to perform the duties of a standing army.

Regarding not needing police forces: It is just as silly to suppose that untrained personnel could determine who killed someone or stole property or any number of other crimes. The police are not there to prevent crime; they are there to begin the punishment part of it.

I view an armed populace as a benefit to society. There is no law that you must be armed, just that in following the law you MAY be armed. Armed citizens can and have (quite often) stopped crimes from being committed. Do some research, and determine the arrest rate of those legally carrying concealed weapons, then compare it to that of the general populace. It should prove edifying.
Click to expand...

There are lots of people... some of whom here on this Board who claim EOD Abilities just because they see something, read something, or come into ancillary contact with Explosives.

The Courts and not the Police are involved in the Punishment Phase.... as I believe it is commonly held yet today in the United States of America that one is Innocent until proven Guilty in a Court of Law.

If you took the time to read my Post you would no doubt see that I posted.....

"There will also be no need for a large Standing Army"
Click to expand...

And yet for some strange reason you Posted that I Posted "no need for a standing Army".

I read that there was gunfire exchanged in a Courthouse not very long ago.... are you saying that I have the Constitutional Right to carry a Loaded Firearm into a Courthouse in the United States of America for "Self Defense"?
You said I have a right to "Self Defense", and, I'm guessing, merely because of the subjuct of this Thread such would mean supposedly incorporating the use of a Firearm..... and because of what you have already Posted.

"And anyway, to refute your point just a bit, the laws are already there to ALLOW people to defend themselves. The laws that are written are those that LIMIT that ability. If the populace is armed, the pissants do not attack, or they surrender/run away at the first opportunity".


"I view an armed populace as a benefit to society. There is no law that you must be armed, just that in following the law you MAY be armed. Armed citizens can and have (quite often) stopped crimes from being committed".
Click to expand...

Are you saying that Federal Law was broken by the State of Virginia by not allowing the Students to attend Class with loaded Firearms?.... that the Students right to "Keep and Bear" was illegally withheld at Virginia Tech?

What about an Aircraft?
Would not the same "Right to Self Defense" by means of a Firearm hold true in a Civilian Aircraft?
Do I have a Right in Law to take a loaded Firearm on my person with me on a Civilian Aircraft in the United States of America?
Many lives would have been saved had the 9-11 Hijackers been shot you know.... many times more than what could have been at the VT Shooting.

Is flying in an Aircraft a Constitutionally Protected Right?
How about attending a University?
Or are such acts choices?
Could not the Students at Virginia Tech just picked a different School where the "Right in Law" to carry a Loaded Firearm by Students to Class was extended?

Do you believe Parents of Students will feel safer knowing that each and every Student who wishes can have a Loaded Firearm at all times on their person in College?
Or will the Parents feel safer knowing there are less guns, not more, on the College Campus? It would be interesting to see how that all plays out.
 
When I attended the commuter campus of IUPUI I carried. Every day, every class, their prohibition on firearms on campus not withstanding. I view my Constitutional right to bear arms and my right as a sentient organism to defend myself as superceding and contravening the University's rules. If push had come to shove and they had discovered I was carrying and chose to expell me I was prepared to sue them for my right. Not for money but to prove the point and had a couple law students and professor's from the IU Law School who were ready, willing and able... Army buddies- we roll like that.

There were shootings, stabbings, rapes, muggings, break ins and at least one abduction during my tenure as a student there. I was not about to drop trou and grab my ankles to satisfy the whims of some Panz E. Feelgood PhD. who felt guns are bad. I also didn't and still don't give a good god damn about how anyone else, student, prof or janitor felt about it- I won't be doubly victimised to satisfy whatever makes them happy.

Part of the social contract is that although on private property one may establish, within the bounds of the law, whatever the owner feels is their SOP on all and sundry activities on the property... on property that is part of the public domain, to include hospitals, busses, airplanes, parks etc. we, as a society, establish the rules and norms. You see this in the phenomenon evidenced by a store establishing a rule regarding patronage and people deciding they disagree with it. Two things happen, the store will change its rule or the store will fail owing to a loss of income.

Don't believe me, try exercising that commonly held but patently false "right of refusal of service to anyone"... then put up a sign in your store saying you won't serve coloured people... let me know how that works out for ya. ;)
 
Last edited:
What if a meteor hit us and destroyed our planet? You can not live in a state of fear over a what if.

Now let's use some common sense....

If you where a criminal and you weren't sure anymore who or who didn't have a firearm, or perhaps who in the crowd might have one, you would most likely think twice before committing a crime.

I have seen numerous reports and interviews where the convicted criminals blatantly state they are not afraid of the police but of the armed citizen.
 
Gator said:
There are lots of people... some of whom here on this Board who claim EOD Abilities just because they see something, read something, or come into ancillary contact with Explosives.

The Courts and not the Police are involved in the Punishment Phase.... as I believe it is commonly held yet today in the United States of America that one is Innocent until proven Guilty in a Court of Law.

If you took the time to read my Post you would no doubt see that I posted.....



And yet for some strange reason you Posted that I Posted "no need for a standing Army".

I read that there was gunfire exchanged in a Courthouse not very long ago.... are you saying that I have the Constitutional Right to carry a Loaded Firearm into a Courthouse in the United States of America for "Self Defense"?
You said I have a right to "Self Defense", and, I'm guessing, merely because of the subjuct of this Thread such would mean supposedly incorporating the use of a Firearm..... and because of what you have already Posted.



Are you saying that Federal Law was broken by the State of Virginia by not allowing the Students to attend Class with loaded Firearms?.... that the Students right to "Keep and Bear" was illegally withheld at Virginia Tech?

What about an Aircraft?
Would not the same "Right to Self Defense" by means of a Firearm hold true in a Civilian Aircraft?
Do I have a Right in Law to take a loaded Firearm on my person with me on a Civilian Aircraft in the United States of America?
Many lives would have been saved had the 9-11 Hijackers been shot you know.... many times more than what could have been at the VT Shooting.

Is flying in an Aircraft a Constitutionally Protected Right?
How about attending a University?
Or are such acts choices?
Could not the Students at Virginia Tech just picked a different School where the "Right in Law" to carry a Loaded Firearm by Students to Class was extended?

Do you believe Parents of Students will feel safer knowing that each and every Student who wishes can have a Loaded Firearm at all times on their person in College?
Or will the Parents feel safer knowing there are less guns, not more, on the College Campus? It would be interesting to see how that all plays out.
Click to expand...

First off, my apologies for not responding sooner. Work has been tough this week. Oh, the joys of being on salary and watching your hourly wage diminish every hour over 40 per week.

Regarding the EOD portion: those guys have my utmost respect. When I was in Special Weapons, I worked with them (the Augsburg, FRG detachment mainly), and during my deployment to Desert Storm, we had 3 teams attached to our company for our mission of putting some airfields back into operation. And, agreeing with something you wrote elsewhere, they didn't help me during my minefield breaching. Afterwards, they'd come by and see what was pushed aside or easily visible (looking for something interesting), but mostly we just saw buttloads of Russian and Italian mines, so they were mostly bored. They also preferred to stay away from my truck and bolster trailer, since I had about 3 tons of HE and Caps aboard.

Coming back to what I said in the earlier post. Perhaps I was overly broad: the police BEGIN the punishment by tracking down and arresting the subject. Of course they do not impose the punishment; but without their efforts, very damn few would be punished for their crimes.

Insofar as carrying in a courthouse, that is a restriction imposed by the polity on the right to carry. The bailiffs and uniformed officers there on business carry. They are simply recognized by the polity as having trust reposed in them. Some officers of the court are allowed to carry, providing a judge OKs that act. So this is not an outright prohibition. Also, keep in mind that my argument regards those licensed to carry concealed.

Regarding Virginia Tech, I think there may be argument in court about that issue. Being as it is a state institution and that state does allow concealed carry, it would be possible to hold that the Chancellor violated the student's rights. Keep in mind, though, I have no legal training, but I think that this could fly.

As far as carrying aboard aircraft is concerned, keep in mind that it is state law in Alaska, where the number of register airplanes greatly outnumbers the number of registered automobiles, that whenever flying out of sight of a town, the pilot MUST be armed. Whether this is a rifle, a shotgun, or a pistol is up to the pilot; however, he must be armed. There is no restriction on carrying in a private aircraft. The restriction comes in when you wish to traverse the restricted passenger sections of airports. Due to the history of hijackings by armed thugs who "want to fly this plane to Cuba" of the late '60s and early 70s, carrying of weapons was curtailed. But some people still fly armed. I was an Armed Forces Courier Service (ARFCOS) courier for a short time in the early 80s. I carried a .45 in a holster. When I boarded the aircraft, I gave the pilot the magazine, but retained a poor club for use should I need it. Some couriers are granted permission to retain their ammo. Then you have the Air Marshals, Secret Service, and others who routinely fly armed. So there are folks who fly armed. I would not be surprised if the list is somewhat lengthy, even so.

As far as the 9/11 hijackers are concerned, you don't need arms to overcome them. Witness Flight 93. All it takes is the determination that you won't surrender. You'll likely die, but you'll die fighting.

Personally, and I have a daughter who is nearing college age, I would be comforted by knowing the licensed CCW holders were attending school with her. I want HER to have that right, as well. She doesn't like pistols much, but she sees the need for one.

Personally, I view the citizenry as does LTC Dave Grossman (USA, Ret). In his work "On Combat" (or perhaps it was "On Killing" I am tired now and not thinking too clearly) he divides society into three broad categories: the sheep, which is most of the populace; the wolves, those who wish to predate upon the sheep; and the sheepdogs, those who protect the sheep. The sheepdogs are generally the military and the police or security organizations, but also include those individuals ready to defend themselves and others at need. The vice principal at that school who ran to his vehicle and got his .45 and stopped the one child from shooting others would definitely be a sheepdog, as was that man outside the courthouse in Texas that was killed while stopping the gunman who was blazing away at his ex-wife.

And on your final point we do agree: it will most certainly be interesting to see how this plays out. Given the D.C. circuit's recent ruling regarding the 2nd Amendment and how it is diametrically opposed to the rulings of 5 other Circuits, I believe the USSC will step in. Also, considering that we are now facing a conflict that is unlikely to be resolved in less than 40 or 50 years, where either Democracy or Radical Islam falls by the wayside, I really look forward to what shall happen in the next couple years.
 
Last edited:
Gator said:
Raise the cost of going to VT and all other colleges by $5,000.00 a year per Student and hire Well Armed, Well Trained, Well Equiped, and Well Paid Campus Police.
Raise the cost by $10,000.00 a year per Student and add Bulletproof Doors with automatic locks so Students need buzzed into the Classroom after class starts, and the same doors at the Dorms.

If Parents truly care about their kids safety then they will come up with the extra money, or just make Student Loans accessible to cover the increase.

Problem solved, and no Laws need changed.
Click to expand...



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20024088/

Safety experts suggest interior classroom locks
Simple solution may have saved lives at Virginia Tech, other tragedies

AP
BLACKSBURG, Va. - After a student gunman killed four of his classmates and his German teacher and then left, Derek O'Dell had to wedge one of his sneakers under the classroom door to keep the attacker from returning to kill even more.
There was no lock on the door to protect Derek and his wounded classmates against Seung-Hui Cho, who killed a total of 30 students and faculty, plus himself, at Virginia Tech's Norris Hall.
Safety experts say that while school officials across the nation re-evaluate campus safety in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech tragedy, many are overlooking a simple solution: putting locks on the inside of classroom doors.
"Often it's the simple stuff that will prevent a tragedy like this, and often it's the simpler things that will make the bigger difference," said Michael Dorn, a campus safety consultant and author of 19 books on the topic. "It's not the complex systems that cost millions of dollars."
O'Dell was shot in one arm, but he and some classmates barricaded the door to Room 207 with his shoe and their bodies — "the heaviest thing in the room was bolted down and the desks were pretty flimsy," he said — as Cho returned twice to try to finish them off. When he couldn't get in, Cho stepped back each time and fired a round into the door, one shot penetrating O'Dell's black fleece jacket but missing his body.
"It's kind of crazy to think that you have 1 1/2 or 2 inches of wood between you and a person with a gun who just killed half your classmates," said O'Dell, who is working at a veterinary clinic for the summer.
Price of safety
Colorado, the site of several school shootings including the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School, has lead the push to put locks on the inside of classrooms doors, said Vincent Wincelowicz, vice president for the Foundation for the Prevention of School Violence at Johnson & Wales University in Denver.
Most classrooms, including those at Virginia Tech, lock only by key and from the outside.
"A lock on a classroom door may cost $50 to $150, maybe $200 with installation, and it would certainly add a layer of protection that a security camera that's being remotely monitored may not afford," said Robert Siciliano, chief executive officer of PublicSchoolSecurity.com and author of "The Safety Minute: Living on High Alert."
Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker said a school committee looking into security changes is considering installation of interior locks. "Right now there's nothing off the table, nothing on the table. It's definitely a consideration," he said.
At Virginia Tech, that would involve about 170 general-use classrooms spread across 2,600 acres.
Hincker said the university must consider any problems the locks could create. In October, a man took several students hostage at Colorado's Platte Canyon High School classroom and killed one girl.
"You gotta make sure that what you're doing is going to be right for most instances rather than just one instance," Hincker said.
Even so, security experts say locks go a long way toward keeping out danger.
"You have to think in terms of we've got to have the least amount of tragedy and the most amount of saving, and that may be this key situation," Wincelowicz said.
May have saved Red Lake lives
Interior locks may have saved lives during a 2005 school shooting on the Red Lake Indian Reservation in Minnesota, said Everett Arnold, principal of the reservation school of about 280 students.
Jeff Weise, 16, barged into the Red Lake school and killed five schoolmates, a teacher and an unarmed guard before taking his own life. Weise earlier had killed his grandfather and his grandfather's companion.
Weise tried to get into several classrooms but failed because the doors were locked from the inside.
"It was a large enough tragedy as is, but it could have been horrendous," Arnold said. "That simple precaution of being able to lock people out was a huge piece."
Still, some question whether changes are necessary.
"This is a fluke of an incident and school security shouldn't have to be changed because of it," said Clay Violand, whose French teacher and 11 classmates were killed at Virginia Tech.
Violand, 21, an international studies major, will return to Virginia Tech this fall. So will O'Dell, a 20-year-old biological science major.
"I know I lost four of my friends in that class, and there are countless other individuals who lost their lives. There's so much hope that they had and it's all just ended," O'Dell said. "Just increasing security, like a simple door lock, could almost prevent that."
Click to expand...

Noting that Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker said that there is nothing on the table as far as ideas to improve the Safety of Students at VT, and that Virginia Tech must consider any problems the locks could create, implying in my opinion that someone with a Gun could lock themselves into a Classroom.
I propose that a Passkey for the new Locks be issued to Campus Police (to be kept in a secured location), so that if the Staff or Authorities need into the Room, for any reason, and the Inside Lock is engaged, well, the Staff or Authorities can unlock the Door from the outside..... if such ever makes it onto the table that is.

I still believe that Bulletproof Doors are the way to go along with the Locks.
 
If Parents truly care about their kids safety then they will come up with the extra money.
Click to expand...

Right, because so many parents can actually afford to pay for their kid's college as things are, let's just double the costs and see what happens.

Nine minutes, that's how long the shooting went on in Va Tech. The ****ing SAS would be hard pressed to stop the shooting in less time.
 
CCW is brilliant, especially if you are, say, a lawyer or a person greatly disliked by society. If some nut decides to rid the world of you, you need to defend yourself.

In the Texas case about two years ago when a father who had lost custody of his kids came in with an assault rifle and gunned down his ex-wife, a man with a CCW permit distracted the man and saved the kid's life.
 
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070808/NEWS01/708080411&template=printpicart

Donald Francis, who police believe was homeless, stood outside the Marathon station at Eighth and Linn streets late Monday night, asking people for money.
That annoyed Geraldine Beasley so much, Chief Tom Streicher said, that she shot and killed Francis when he approached her,
"He asked her for a quarter," the chief said Tuesday.
Beasley, 62, of Walnut Hills, complained to someone else at the scene about the panhandling, Streicher said. Then, he said, when Francis asked her for money, she pulled out a gun and fired.
Click to expand...

Clearly, hand guns make America safer.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
You can use a hammer to build a house, or you can use it to kill someone.
Same deal.
Click to expand...

No, because a hammer primary function is to hammer nails, not to kill people.
If someone uses a hammer to kill someone its because it was misused.

Firearms only purpose is took take life. They have no other function.

Its not at all the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top