Guns on campus: Where do you stand?

[ZeeMore21]

Please tell me also, in what universe is carrying a weapon safe. There are times weapons go off in people's pockets...is carrying a gun safe then?

[ZeeMore21]

Gun owner's rights are not MORE important than your right to attend a school if you so choose. However, if you choose not to, that is not the problem of the person who wears a gun. If I have a fear of high heels, and I choose not to go to a school because it allows them, that is my own decision. It is not the fault of whoever wears the object I have a distaste for.

Your analogies are just plain stupid, to be honest and blunt with you. I don't think the vast majority of people place the danger of high heels on the same level as the danger of lethal weapons. I'm sure you don't either, but you are too naive and ignorant to say so.

[ZeeMore21]

No everyone has the right to protect themselves. Gun owners and non-gun-owners (is that even a phrase?) But no one has a natural "right" to not be near people with certain things they don't like. You have every right to wonder, of course. You just don't have a right to force anyone to stop, so I don't know where this is going.

You just stated that people shouldn't be asking whether colleges should permit guns on campus. I can quote you if you'd like...I don't pull things out of thin air like you do. I can back my stuff up.

[ZeeMore21]

Gun owner's rights are not MORE important than your right to attend a school if you so choose. However, if you choose not to, that is not the problem of the person who wears a gun. If I have a fear of high heels, and I choose not to go to a school because it allows them, that is my own decision. It is not the fault of whoever wears the object I have a distaste for.

It might not be the gun holder's problem legally, but I'd hope most gun owners would question their own intentions and their need to be carrying a gun on a campus at the expense of others.

[ZeeMore21]

In what universe is driving a car safe? In fact, both are fairly safe, and with both there is a slight chance of an accident. But the chance of an accident gives me no right to harm (or drag away by force) someone who wants to carry. I agree that you have every right to not like guns. I am only saying you don't have a right to restrict people from caryying any more than they have a right to restrict you from doing something you like to do.

Citizens have the right to call for stricter gun laws in this country given that the US is at the top of most crime lists.

[ZeeMore21]

I find it ridiculous that you, Aaron, will not even admit how dangerous guns can be...it'd downright shameful. You want to allow everyone and anyone to own a gun, but I have yet to hear you speak about the fact that there is a major gun problem in this country. I've never really met someone so neglectful when it comes to current events and what is going on in many communities.

[ZeeMore21]

And I will say it again--since you choose to ignore this--that citizens have the right to call for stricter gun laws and not be labeled as thugs....I suggest you study carefully what the meaning of a thug is because you are using this term irresponsibly. I, and many others, have the right to question why, when, and how guns are used because we live in a country that is rampant with crime as a result of the lax gun laws you proudly defend. Shame on you for questioning the intentions of those who see the consequences of a gun culture. You want to go around and say illegal guns are the ones to blame for crime...at the end of the day, you have to admit that all guns were purchased legally at some point. Illegal guns are guns that were most likely stolen, which points to the need to enforce stricter gun laws to prevent careless and immature people from being able to purchase a gun for whatever reason. You can stand by your libertarian views all you want...to not even be able to see what is going on around you makes you downright naive. I've had a close friend who was murdered on my very street due to gun violence, so how dare you come here and act childish and naive with your whole "let live" crap. People are dying because of the lax gun laws you and others wave around, and you don't even seem to care. Really, shame on you and goodnight.

Edited July 1, 2011 by ZeeMore21

[wtncffts]

Wow, this really blew up, didn't it? I doubt a 'formally-trained philosopher', to quote something earlier, would change much. I've tried in all my comments to provide carefully expressed thoughts; I have some training in philosophy and, as the box to the left shows, I'm in political science. I quoted, at length, some findings from a scholarly work whose author, by the way, candidly admits he is a member of both the NRA and the Brady Center for Gun Control and, reading through it, seems thoroughly fair-minded and analytically rigorous. At this point, the discussion is really basically just three users repeating again and again their arguments, and each talking over each other's heads, because we're coming from such different and diametrically opposed fundamental premises.

As I said earlier, it's probably of no use to try to convince anyone of the ultra-libertarian position, as Aaron clearly is, that any restrictions whatsoever on individual liberty, as they conceive it, are justifiable. It's clear by the derogatory, slightly mocking way that Aaron talks about various societal institutions such as government, the police, indeed, even 'society' itself, that he is skeptical, to put it mildly, of the legitimacy of many, if not most, aspects of our political and social systems. That's fine. I repeat that this is a perfectly legitimate philosophical viewpoint, but it's just not something which can really be contested. I'd humbly suggest we all save our breathes and agree to disagree.

Or you can carry on. Obviously it's up to you, but the discussion seems quite futile at this point.

[Two Espressos]

Wow, this really blew up, didn't it?

Yeah, it really did.

I doubt a 'formally-trained philosopher', to quote something earlier, would change much. I've tried in all my comments to provide carefully expressed thoughts; I have some training in philosophy and, as the box to the left shows, I'm in political science.

You're probably right. And I apologize: I didn't know that you had had training in philosophy!

I mainly said the philosopher thing because I felt like I wasn't adequately expressing my side, and I wasn't getting Aaron to see the flaws in his analogies.

I quoted, at length, some findings from a scholarly work whose author, by the way, candidly admits he is a member of both the NRA and the Brady Center for Gun Control and, reading through it, seems thoroughly fair-minded and analytically rigorous. At this point, the discussion is really basically just three users repeating again and again their arguments, and each talking over each other's heads, because we're coming from such different and diametrically opposed fundamental premises.

Yes, I found your quote cogent and rigorous as well. It was a good one!

As I said earlier, it's probably of no use to try to convince anyone of the ultra-libertarian position, as Aaron clearly is, that any restrictions whatsoever on individual liberty, as they conceive it, are justifiable. It's clear by the derogatory, slightly mocking way that Aaron talks about various societal institutions such as government, the police, indeed, even 'society' itself, that he is skeptical, to put it mildly, of the legitimacy of many, if not most, aspects of our political and social systems. That's fine. I repeat that this is a perfectly legitimate philosophical viewpoint, but it's just not something which can really be contested. I'd humbly suggest we all save our breathes and agree to disagree.

Or you can carry on. Obviously it's up to you, but the discussion seems quite futile at this point.

Ah, I should have left the discussion for good before, when I said I'd leave the discussion for good.

I agree with you; the discussion is quite futile now. We should all just quit.

I wish Aaron would have addressed my rebuttal of his analogies, though.

[ZeeMore21]

I do see what you are saying wtncffts, and I honestly think I am done with this. I was okay with Aarons views until he felt the need to call those who oppose the current gun laws as thugs who want to cause harm to gun holders. He wasn't going to get away with that one. But again, you are right, I am done with this post. This specific poster has a tendency to want to push people's buttons in every single thread, hence his reputation score. I shouldn't even have wasted my time.

[wtncffts]

You're probably right. And I apologize: I didn't know that you had had training in philosophy!

I mainly said the philosopher thing because I felt like I wasn't adequately expressing my side, and I wasn't getting Aaron to see the flaws in his analogies.

No need to apologize. I probably just overstated in that last post, as when I said 'training' I didn't mean I was a professional philosopher or something. I did an 'extended minor' in philosophy, which is probably about the same amount of philosophy you've done, and I did TA a political philosophy course. That's it, though.

I do see what you are saying wtncffts, and I honestly think I am done with this. I was okay with Aarons views until he felt the need to call those who oppose the current gun laws as thugs who want to cause harm to gun holders. He wasn't going to get away with that one. But again, you are right, I am done with this post. This specific poster has a tendency to want to push people's buttons in every single thread, hence his reputation score. I shouldn't even have wasted my time.

I've been through my fair share of heated political discussions, and I'm usually in the middle because I'm naturally cautious and inclined to follow 'principles of charity': imputing sincere motivations and intentions, and trying to think the best of the discussants. Thus, I don't want to say anything about Aaron personally; I'm absolutely sure that he's not indifferent and uncaring about violence and death. I'm sure he cares as much about such things as we all do. He simply has different views about how to deal with such things, and how to balance those risks against his views about basic rights and liberties. Now, obviously, we disagree with him both empirically and in terms of that normative balance of values, but I truly believe he is well-meaning. To be sure, as you say, he hasn't been particularly charitable towards those who disagree with him, but that's his burden.

[christophinoz]

Would the 'pro-guns on campus' lobby be happy if I carried the following around school just in case:

- a 10 inch kitchen knife? I am very qualified in it's use after years cutting bread in kitchens

- a bow and arrow(s)? I am highly skilled in it's use

- a pool cue?

- a taser? No idea how these work but am sure it's pretty easy.

- nunchuckas...

(&fwiw, the fists of fury angle is irrelevant unless you want to start cutting people's hands off)

[Mal83]

Well I have never met someone as afraid of guns, so I guess we just hang around very different crowds!

I am sorry, but I don't like to bother with whether something is dangerous or not. Everything is dangerous to different degrees, but it is wrong to agress against someone even if they have the most dangerous of contraptions. The real focus should be intent. Obviously if I accidentally scare you, but intend you no harm, I should not be harmed for it. If I intend to harm you, I obviously must be stopped to prevent harm to you.

In our society, walking into a building with a bomb strapped to oneself is sufficient to assume intent to harm. However, carrying a gun is almost never intended to harm, and we all no it. Dangerous or not (I say not, but we disagree), there is no intent and no victim.

generally speaking, it almost seems like you believe that society doesn't need to be governed, that just the presence of rules and regulations and the enforcement to back them up are somehow violent or violence in the making. To say that every single individual in any society has the right to do anything he or she pleases so long as their actions don't inflict harm on others might logically work if you removed all of the social mores, norms, connections, and constraints we have placed upon ourselves to constitute a society, but we are not simply a group of individuals who happen to live near each other. The types of actions carried out by someone that negatively effect others are generally regulated, there are rules against them, they are not allowed because your right to do something should not inflict on my right to be safe. But they are not allowed only because Uncle Sam wants to stick it to you or keep you down, they are not allowed because YOU do NOT have the right to cause anyone harm by your actions. Even if your action, such as carrying a gun in a place you're not allowed to, is seen as having the 'potential' to cause harm. And yes, as a society we have agreed that actions that clearly have the potential to cause harm should be regulated or just not allowed. That's the result of collectivity, members of a group working to make the group as a whole safer and better off. Whether you agree with the group's particular decision is up to you. Your intent doesn't matter to me, you're carrying a gun next me in the grocery store or on campus, you are a total stranger, why the HELL should I trust that your intentions are peaceful? How would I know that you're wearing a gun like jewelery? Why should I assume such a thing when the real purpose of a gun is to shoot it? If most people carried guns simply as a fashion statement I guess that would be a safe assumption, but you have to face it, that's not what they're for. You make it sound like it's outrageous for me to assume you're willing to cause harm with your gun, if I sat next to you in class in fear that you'll stab me with your pencil then that would be a little crazy on my part because a pencil's primary function is to write and I shouldn't be thinking that you'll use it as a weapon. But I'm right to question your intent as well as lean toward assuming you're going to use the gun the way it's supposed to be used, whether it's for your own protection in case someone attacks you or to go postal and launch your own attack.

You're assuming that police or other rule regulators will need to engage in violence in order to get people to follow those rules and therefore they are hired thugs who hurt people who are simply exercising their right to "do whatever they want." That's not true. If I own a college campus and one day I choose to disallow guns after years of allowing them on my campus and I see you carrying one, I and the security guards will tell you that you can't have it on my campus, your reaction should be to walk away with it, whether you like it or not is not my concern. That's how I will disallow it, there was no force or violence there was there? I'm not assaulting you by just telling you that you're no longer allowed to do something. If you just go on walking like you didn't hear me and feel that you don't have to listen to me because I have no inherent right to stop you then yes, I will send the cops after you, but you chose to escalate the situation and bring it to that, as a member of society you have given the police and other enforcement agencies the right to act on your behalf as well as on the behalf of other citizens who are in harms way because of you. But no one is saying that if you're carrying in a place where you are allowed to do so that anyone has the right to enforce you not to, if you're allowed, then you're allowed. The drugs example is also terribly flawed, a drug user is not only harming themselves, they are spreading harm to others, they have to buy the drugs so they support the dealers who continue to sell, someone who's high as a kite gets in their car to get to the dealer's house (why should that person's supposed right to do drugs come before my right to not be killed while driving?), drug users share needles spreading disease and they are a drain on society in general. So no, people should not be allowed to do drugs and they should be stopped by the police, we as a society have a decided that it's ok to use force to stop something that's so dangerous to the majority. We're not talking about just smoking a joint in your basement and being thrown in jail for it. You're assuming that it's some kind of human right to do anything so long as you're not harming someone else. We are the ones who assign ourselves rights. Your self-assigned rights don't supersede that of the established set of rights and rules of our society. If a society comes to the decision to not allow it's members to carry guns anymore anywhere, then you no longer have the right to carry one, if you disobey those entrusted and ordained to enforce that law then you are choosing to face the consequences of your actions. You've brought about this "violence" upon yourself.

[ZeeMore21]

Would the 'pro-guns on campus' lobby be happy if I carried the following around school just in case:

- a 10 inch kitchen knife? I am very qualified in it's use after years cutting bread in kitchens

- a bow and arrow(s)? I am highly skilled in it's use

- a pool cue?

- a taser? No idea how these work but am sure it's pretty easy.

- nunchuckas...

(&fwiw, the fists of fury angle is irrelevant unless you want to start cutting people's hands off)

I know I said that I was done with this post, but I had to give you a +1 for this, I ended up rolling on the floor laughing.

[elemee243]

The only reason that any gun exists is to kill something, and certain (many) guns these days only exist to kill human beings. Killing is the SOLE PURPOSE of a gun; it has absolutely no other reason for being in this world. In the words of Stephen King, "what else can you do with a gun? Use it to light your cigarette?" All rhetoric and politics aside, it is this reality that chills me sometimes.

[kotov]

I can't really see any good coming of it. I'm from the south so I'm used to a very gun-heavy culture, but I was never that into it. I would think a strong police/security system would go a lot farther to prevent campus violence than a bunch of vigilantes with concealed handguns. That said, it's something I'm ultra-paranoid about, so if there were some hard evidence that it would in fact increase safety in that situation, I'd be all for it.

[rising_star]

I read an interesting thing about an Arizona politician pointing a gun at a reporter this morning. You can read it here. The highlights are below:

Richard Ruelas writes that Klein said "Oh it's so cute," before aiming the pistol square at his chest so he could see the red laser sight beam appear on his body. It probably didn't help the often adversarial character of relations between the press and political leaders for Ruelas to learn that the .380 Ruger in question had no safety.

"I just didn't have my hand on the trigger," Klein told the reporter, by way of reassurance.

...

I kind of cringed when I read that she had done that," Senate Ethics Rule Chair Ron Gould, a Republican, told the Capitol Times. "She wasn't brandishing the weapon. I think she just thought it would be cute to shine the laser sight on the reporter. I personally don't like seeing that kind of thing—because that's how people get killed."