Concealed weapons in college classrooms

[greg775]

If you're Balta, you're praying the guy with the knife stabs you before the guy defending himself with a gun shoots you!

I don't understand those who are against people having guns to defend themselves against the malcontents in society. Don't forget the growing foreign threat as well as the nutjobs who are blowing up our campuses with bullets. It's just wrong to let some asshole go to a parade or hop on a bus and start beheading people. Though in the case of a knife, there probably wouldn't be a ton of casualties as somebody's gonna tackle the guy and get the knife.

 

I mean in this day and age of violence, I would think everybody would want to sleep with a gun nearby. Think about it. Home invasion, you get tied up and left to die in the basement or even worse, tortured then die. It's Americans' right to protect themselvesl.

[Kyyle23]

Just curious, if someone steps up with their own gun and things get crazy and innocent bystanders are killed by the guy defending himself, are you ok with that?

 

Greg, you see someone come in and pull out a gun and threaten people, and you have your gun with you, pull it out and nervously point and shoot and accidentally hit the wrong person because you are so scared and nervous and anxious, like most people would be in that situation, would you be able to live with yourself?

 

Just the sort of thing that runs through my head when i am thinking about everyone packing and anyone playing the hero. A teacher gets his gun out and blows away my kid while defending the class from a guy trying to kill them all.

 

Not every situation is bad guy against good guy

[Jenksismyhero]

Just curious, if someone steps up with their own gun and things get crazy and innocent bystanders are killed by the guy defending himself, are you ok with that?

 

Greg, you see someone come in and pull out a gun and threaten people, and you have your gun with you, pull it out and nervously point and shoot and accidentally hit the wrong person because you are so scared and nervous and anxious, like most people would be in that situation, would you be able to live with yourself?

 

Just the sort of thing that runs through my head when i am thinking about everyone packing and anyone playing the hero. A teacher gets his gun out and blows away my kid while defending the class from a guy trying to kill them all.

 

Not every situation is bad guy against good guy

 

1) Better to live with yourself for making a tragic mistake than risk not being alive anymore to worry about anything.

 

2) There have been very few documented cases of this happening. Certainly more rare than said innocent bystander taking down the would-be killer and SAVING lives. There's a growing list of examples of that happening.

 

2) Assuming someone is unintentionally/accidentally killed, I think you hold the person shooting to the same standard as anyone who fires a gun and kills someone. What's the context? How reasonable was the fear to use the gun? How errant was the shot? (aiming blindly down a hallway, in a crowd of people, etc. etc.). I'm sure it would be tough to hold that person criminally responsible in most situations, but it's possible. There's no reason you can't hold them civilly liable, though. If you're going to use a gun in public you need to be prepared for all outcomes. That comes with the territory, IMO.

 

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

1) Better to live with yourself for making a tragic mistake than risk not being alive anymore to worry about anything.

 

2) There have been very few documented cases of this happening. Certainly more rare than said innocent bystander taking down the would-be killer and SAVING lives. There's a growing list of examples of that happening.

 

2) Assuming someone is unintentionally/accidentally killed, I think you hold the person shooting to the same standard as anyone who fires a gun and kills someone. What's the context? How reasonable was the fear to use the gun? How errant was the shot? (aiming blindly down a hallway, in a crowd of people, etc. etc.). I'm sure it would be tough to hold that person criminally responsible in most situations, but it's possible. There's no reason you can't hold them civilly liable, though. If you're going to use a gun in public you need to be prepared for all outcomes. That comes with the territory, IMO.

Just keep in mind, even with some training, people firing a handgun in the heat of a bad situation are really bad at it, as a group. Most shots will miss their target. This has been documented. They may be more likely to hit the bad guy than an innocent bystander, but both are low probabilities. Not good odds if you ask me.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Just keep in mind, even with some training, people firing a handgun in the heat of a bad situation are really bad at it, as a group. Most shots will miss their target. This has been documented. They may be more likely to hit the bad guy than an innocent bystander, but both are low probabilities. Not good odds if you ask me.

 

Hitting the target isn't the only good outcome though. Just shooting back, forcing the shooter to take cover and stop shooting could save lives.

 

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Hitting the target isn't the only good outcome though. Just shooting back, forcing the shooter to take cover and stop shooting could save lives.

Or end them.

 

I wouldn't suggest taking away guns, for many reasons. But I do think the reasoning that an armed public is a crime deterrent it weak at best. I think the reality ends up being, as we've seen in the news plenty, that you will get a lot of bad things happening. There MAY be a few more good than bad, but for me at least, the threshold needs to be very high. And the ratio, in reality, won't be.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Or end them.

 

I wouldn't suggest taking away guns, for many reasons. But I do think the reasoning that an armed public is a crime deterrent it weak at best. I think the reality ends up being, as we've seen in the news plenty, that you will get a lot of bad things happening. There MAY be a few more good than bad, but for me at least, the threshold needs to be very high. And the ratio, in reality, won't be.

 

If you do a search online and try to find evidence of innocent bystanders being killed by some hero vigilante, you'd be hard pressed to find many stories.

[cabiness42]

I am 100% against concealed carry for dogs: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2015/10...-foot/74626450/

[Kyyle23]

If you do a search online and try to find evidence of innocent bystanders being killed by some hero vigilante, you'd be hard pressed to find many stories.

 

I am having just as difficult of a time finding stories of hero vigilantes stopping mass murders. weird how that works

 

1) Better to live with yourself for making a tragic mistake than risk not being alive anymore to worry about anything.

 

and I assume you would be cool if that was your own kid that a vigilante killed. No big deal, just collateral damage?

[Jenksismyhero]

I am having just as difficult of a time finding stories of hero vigilantes stopping mass murders. weird how that works

 

Plenty of examples here:

 

http://gunssavelives.net/browse-stories/

 

Some are just self-defense in one on one situations, but still, they show a positive outcome to having a gun in a stressful, fearful situation.

 

 

and I assume you would be cool if that was your own kid that a vigilante killed. No big deal, just collateral damage?

 

Of course not. But would I feel better if an adult at Sandy Hook had a gun and could have potentially saved my son, or some of his classmates? Yep. Odds are more likely that lives would have been saved, not lost, if someone was shooting back.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[NorthSideSox72]

Odds are more likely that lives would have been saved, not lost, if someone was shooting back.

 

First, I'm not at all convinced that's true. Second, even if the chances of that are 10%, and the chances of others being hurt is only say 5%, that's is far too much risk IMO. Especially when you consider that it isn't just a shooter missing that is the bad outcome - it could cause the shooter to act hastily and actually kill more people. And the biggest danger is people who just do stupid stuff, like that lady who shot at a car running away from a shoplifting at a Walmart or something the other day.

 

You are working from the assumption that people will only shoot when justified. Even if you think the risk in that scenario is acceptable, you are ignoring the many times people will shoot when they shouldn't, and when the target would not have hurt or killed anyone.

 

[Iwritecode]

Interesting

[EvilMonkey]

Interesting

I find it funny they always complain that the studies aren't 'complete' because the Feds won't pony up more money. The antis have billionaires on their side who coudl fund this with pocket change. But they don't because then the methods will get more scrutiny and people will wonder why suicides are counted, and when they talk about school shootings, why do they include things that happen 2 blocks away, or people who were on the street outside the school at night just because they randomly happened to be there. Number will change.

 

[illinilaw08]

If you do a search online and try to find evidence of innocent bystanders being killed by some hero vigilante, you'd be hard pressed to find many stories.

 

If you do a search on-line, you can find many instances of friendly fire killing troops - those with the most training with firearms.

 

In a mass shooter situation, I have a hard time believing that the guy who shoots once a weekend, or once a month can properly assess the situation and not ultimately make the situation worse.

 

But then I also think part of the problem with this argument is that both sides argue in absolutes. Could someone armed make an accurate shot and save lives? Sure. Could they make the situation worse? Absolutely. I tend to argue that the odds are higher that they make the situation worse and are, therefore, a net negative in a crisis situation.

[illinilaw08]

I find it funny they always complain that the studies aren't 'complete' because the Feds won't pony up more money. The antis have billionaires on their side who coudl fund this with pocket change. But they don't because then the methods will get more scrutiny and people will wonder why suicides are counted, and when they talk about school shootings, why do they include things that happen 2 blocks away, or people who were on the street outside the school at night just because they randomly happened to be there. Number will change.

 

Suicides absolutely SHOULD be counted. As someone who lost someone important to a suicide by gun, I can tell you all about the studies that people are more likely to successfully take their own life by firearm than by any other method.

[Jenksismyhero]

First, I'm not at all convinced that's true. Second, even if the chances of that are 10%, and the chances of others being hurt is only say 5%, that's is far too much risk IMO. Especially when you consider that it isn't just a shooter missing that is the bad outcome - it could cause the shooter to act hastily and actually kill more people. And the biggest danger is people who just do stupid stuff, like that lady who shot at a car running away from a shoplifting at a Walmart or something the other day.

 

You are working from the assumption that people will only shoot when justified. Even if you think the risk in that scenario is acceptable, you are ignoring the many times people will shoot when they shouldn't, and when the target would not have hurt or killed anyone.

 

Shooting at a shooter intent on killing multiple people is going to cause him/her to shoot more? I find that premise a bit illogical.

 

And yes, there will be morons. No doubt about that. But I think the potential for MORE safety is higher. It's funny that the myth is more guns = more deaths, but we have more guns now than at any other time in history right? And the murder rates gone down? So which is it?

[EvilMonkey]

I am having just as difficult of a time finding stories of hero vigilantes stopping mass murders. weird how that works

 

 

 

and I assume you would be cool if that was your own kid that a vigilante killed. No big deal, just collateral damage?

Well if they STOP it early, then it isn't a mass murder, is it? And then you can say there was 'no evidence' that they saved more lives, because they didn't take more lives. Hmmm.

 

And FYI, I am not using my cc to save anyone other than myself in most cases. i have no obligation to rush into a hostage situation, my obligation is to protect me and mine. If there was a clear opportunity to prevent something, then i would surely weigh the risks/rewards, but the thought that everyone with a gun will just pull it ou and start firing blindly towards a bad guy are just plain stupid and insulting. The police don't have an obligation to protect you, neither to concealed carriers.

[Jenksismyhero]

If you do a search on-line, you can find many instances of friendly fire killing troops - those with the most training with firearms.

 

In a mass shooter situation, I have a hard time believing that the guy who shoots once a weekend, or once a month can properly assess the situation and not ultimately make the situation worse.

 

But then I also think part of the problem with this argument is that both sides argue in absolutes. Could someone armed make an accurate shot and save lives? Sure. Could they make the situation worse? Absolutely. I tend to argue that the odds are higher that they make the situation worse and are, therefore, a net negative in a crisis situation.

 

I'm not talking in absolutes. I'm saying there's no proof that people with guns will suddenly become moron vigilantes, and that anyone who shoots should be held to the same standard as anyone else - is your shooting justified or not. You should be open to criminal prosecution of the situation warrants it.

[Jenksismyhero]

Interesting

 

Lol, I love this from the website:

 

These incidents are only examples. There is no comprehensive federal database of concealed carry incidents, and some states even bar the release of such information by law. As a result, the examples in Concealed Carry Killers are taken primarily from news reports and from the reporting required in a few states. These examples represent an unknown fraction of similar incidents that routinely occur across the nation.

 

We don't know how many of these incidents happen, but we know there are a helluva lot of them that occur routinely!!

 

GMAFB.

 

 

[illinilaw08]

I'm not talking in absolutes. I'm saying there's no proof that people with guns will suddenly become moron vigilantes, and that anyone who shoots should be held to the same standard as anyone else - is your shooting justified or not. You should be open to criminal prosecution of the situation warrants it.

 

But there are plenty of examples of people acting like morons with their firearms. There are also examples of people acting heroically with firearms.

 

As someone who did not grow up around guns, doesn't hunt, and doesn't have a farm with crops to protect, wouldn't trust myself with a firearm (and without training, shouldn't be trusted with a firearm). The morons with guns are a bigger risk to me in public (particularly in states that allow anyone to carry anywhere) than the heroes who might put a stop to a bad situation.

[Jenksismyhero]

But there are plenty of examples of people acting like morons with their firearms. There are also examples of people acting heroically with firearms.

 

As someone who did not grow up around guns, doesn't hunt, and doesn't have a farm with crops to protect, wouldn't trust myself with a firearm (and without training, shouldn't be trusted with a firearm). The morons with guns are a bigger risk to me in public (particularly in states that allow anyone to carry anywhere) than the heroes who might put a stop to a bad situation.

 

Here's where I say that I'm ok with certification or training classes, etc. for CC, and then people like Balta will say "fine, but that's still not enough!"

[Chisoxfn]

First, I'm not at all convinced that's true. Second, even if the chances of that are 10%, and the chances of others being hurt is only say 5%, that's is far too much risk IMO. Especially when you consider that it isn't just a shooter missing that is the bad outcome - it could cause the shooter to act hastily and actually kill more people. And the biggest danger is people who just do stupid stuff, like that lady who shot at a car running away from a shoplifting at a Walmart or something the other day.

 

You are working from the assumption that people will only shoot when justified. Even if you think the risk in that scenario is acceptable, you are ignoring the many times people will shoot when they shouldn't, and when the target would not have hurt or killed anyone.

The problem is their are a lot less crazy people then their are gun owners, so if you played the probabilities, it takes far fewer mistakes from gun owners then it does actual crazy people (just given sheer sizes). by the way I am neither pro / anti guns. I personally don't own any and see no need to own them. If I were left to protect myself, I'd be more likely to shoot a friend / family member / neighbor around my house then an actual criminal. I can think of the times I thought someone was coming into my house when it was actually for a justifiable reason and well, if I had a gun, who knows what I or my wife would have done. I can also think of the times I snuck into my parents house at night because I locked my keys out and had a spare set, etc (or needed something but didn't want to wake them...after I had moved out). Had they had guns, I could have gotten shot.

 

Plus while the old adage is, bad people will always get guns, I don't know if the crazies would always get guns. Yes, I think the criminals would get guns no matter what (but largely the criminals are combated by the police), but a whack job nut might not be as likely to get him (and those are the ones going into a situation ready to die...so police effectiveness is different vs. a typical criminal who is planning on making a successful exit) as he doesn't have the usual avenues open to him then a typical criminal. Could he get them, sure, but the crazy is probably just as likely to get himself in troubling trying to get the contraband. I believe in the right to bear arms really for the sole purpose of A) you hunt or B) you want to keep firearms to protect from a government uprising (and again...this is tough cause in this day and age an individual would have no chance against the power of our military).

[greg775]

If you do a search on-line, you can find many instances of friendly fire killing troops - those with the most training with firearms.

 

In a mass shooter situation, I have a hard time believing that the guy who shoots once a weekend, or once a month can properly assess the situation and not ultimately make the situation worse.

 

But then I also think part of the problem with this argument is that both sides argue in absolutes. Could someone armed make an accurate shot and save lives? Sure. Could they make the situation worse? Absolutely. I tend to argue that the odds are higher that they make the situation worse and are, therefore, a net negative in a crisis situation.

 

Well, something has to be done. It's almost sadistic to let these lunatics have their guns and come into churches and schools guns ablazing and trying to kill hundreds of people and nobody can be armed to stop him. If we can't have guns to defend ourselves maybe we could have tazers or bring a set of steak knives and fire them at the killer. It's un-human, un-american to let these people be armed and kill me and my relatives and not give me anything but my bare fists to fight and feet to run away.

 

Let me put it this way to the anti's on here. ...

If you were told by an accurate person that in the next two weeks there would DEFINITELY be a gunman at an event you were attending and the gunman would be at one point within five yards of you, would you be in favor of others in the vicinity being armed? Or take your chances? Cause the odds are growing each and every day you will be in this situation somedday. Please answer.

Edited October 26, 2015 by greg775

[caulfield12]

Police have been present in schools for decades—particularly in low-income communities of color—but some experts also tie their increased presence to the rise in school shootings. After Columbine, the Department of Justice invested $876 million to fund the presence of nearly 7,000 school resource officers like Fields (S. Carolina officer accused of brutality and racism in dealing with black female student in classroom). During the 2013–2014 school year, there were more than 82,000 officers working in public schools.

 

yahoo.com

Edited October 28, 2015 by caulfield12

[Jenksismyhero]

Police have been present in schools for decades—particularly in low-income communities of color—but some experts also tie their increased presence to the rise in school shootings. After Columbine, the Department of Justice invested $876 million to fund the presence of nearly 7,000 school resource officers like Fields (S. Carolina officer accused of brutality and racism in dealing with black female student in classroom). During the 2013–2014 school year, there were more than 82,000 officers working in public schools.

 

yahoo.com

 

I think that guy went a little overboard, but I read somewhere that there's a video showing that same student punching the teacher, which was why the cop was called in the first place. At some point, if she's already committed battery AND is resisting arrest, the officer is going to have to be physical. Again, looks like he went above and beyond what was necessary, but this is another example of the media spreading a "white cop beats saintly black person for no reason!" narrative.