Catsix is a she.
Are you permitted to have guns, concealed or otherwise, at work in the U.S.? It’s not completely out of line to compare a campus to a workplace. And of course for the instructors and administrators it IS their workplace.
Airman Doors, you made one of the most compelling arguments I have ever heard FOR carrying a weapon (most are spurious at best) - I assume that you are fully trained to use a gun, and I can see your point that you feel a responsibility to carry your weapon. You, however, are not everybody. Most of the people I see out in public every day, I wouldn’t want to see them with a hot curling iron, much less a loaded weapon.
I don’t think that all students over 21 carrying concealed weapons would have made things better; I have this picture in my head of a bunch of students whipping out their guns and firing into the back of their fellow students’ heads in their panic, but all of this discussion is just wanking anyway, since there is no way of knowing what would have been better.
Why? If someone started a thread about a bomb going off in a marketplace in Baghdad, killing 33 people and someone chimed in something like, 'How’s tha for Mission Accomplished?", would that be inappropriate?
I just don’t buy that is was inappropriate at all, and I don’t agree with catsix’s position at all.
You’ve never seen me argue for gun control either. If you were to do a search (which would be tricky since “gun” is a three letter word), you’d find that I’ve been consistent in saying that gun rights should be protected, but I also have a strong distaste for pro-gun zealots. I don’t dislike gun nuts because I think they’re wrong but because I think they’re creepy and fetishistic and they take the issue too seriously.
P.S. Thank you, engim4tic and Jodi, I did not know that. I’ve never bothered to enquire. I imagine then that this (the banning of concealed firearms, or handguns in general) is standard for most college campuses?
Yeah, in a thread about the tragedy of a marketplace bombing a political shot would be pretty inappropriate.
Forgot to address the OP - I don’t think catsix’s remark was appropriate in that thread, at any time. That thread was a discussion of what happened with shock, commiseration, grief, trying to get details, etc. Her remark would be appropriate in a forensic thread about why it happened, which I’m sure we’ll have plenty of. It was like her coming into a funeral thread about your dad who just died of lung cancer, and dropping a load about the evils of tobacco. Just not appropriate. (It would have been equally inappropriate for anti-gun supporters to get on their soapbox, too.)
and
just don’t line up. I can’t see how somebody, especially like Airman presenting a legitimate reason to carry (trained military, used to gun handling and use, pre-existing duty to protect and serve) as nearly a responsibility due to his training, and converting that as a basis for a broad-brush attack on “fetishist” gun owners, and then SUBSEQUENTLY claiming you “don’t have a problem with gun rights” is a bit disingenuous. Akin to saying, perhaps, you have no problem with gay rights but any guy who has sex with another man is an abhorrent fetishist who has disgusting sexual practices, and that there are better ways to satisfy your sexual urges. The cognitive dissonance that holding a position with those extremes is incredible.
Two things,
Do you think the shooter chose the school because of the law? Do you think the shooter thought, “Hey, at the school, they can’t shoot back, I’ll go there.”
I’m willing there is a connection between the shooter and the location and that the probablitly of some victim carrying didn’t enter in to the killers mind.
There are places on the planet where people carry any weapon they can afford all the time. These places suck. Iraq, Afghanistan, large parts of Africa. Heck, why don’t you take your guns and move there. Aren’t those places the gun owners paradise?
There is no contradiction. I believe that smoking should be legal and don’t really care for anti-smoking laws. That doesn’t mean I can’t think smoking is stupid.
I support people’s legal rights to own firearms, but I have little respect for people who feel the need to pack heat wherever they go or who obsess about the issue all the time.
I never saw Airman provide any reason he needs to carry a gun, by the way. “Responsibility to his training” my ass. Why would it be irresponsible to leave the thing at home?
I don’t think the comment was too soon. It was just in the wrong thread. I’m sure no one would start a Pit thread blasting a poster for the act of initiating another gun control debate in the GD forum using the shootings in Virginia as an example.
No, because you’re assuming that all gun-owners have their guns to fire them at people and brandish them as much as possible, most gun owners have them to fire at ranges, or to protect themselves in the unfortunate (as differentiated from hoped for) case that they must defend themselves with deadly force
ok, sure, I can accept that, I think I had more issue with the rather vicious-sounding tone you adopted to Airman who at least posited that he had a better reason than “gun-toting fetishism” to be armed. It seemed like a bizarre attack against somebody who didn’t seem to be doing what you were so upset about, and he made legitimate (debatable, yes, but legitimate) points about the oddity of university campus rules, to wit
which sounds less like fetishism and more like a reasonable discussion point, unlike your response, which sounded like a rapid anti-gun position, even if that isn’t the position you actually take
That depends upon the workplace and local laws. Some places of employment won’t allow you to have a firearm at all on premises, even though it’s perfectly legal for you to do so. Other times, the law prohibits people from carrying weapons in a place of employment. For example, in TN, it’s illegal for anyone to carry a firearm into a bar, unless they’re an on-duty police officer.
You know, if both sides on the gun issue were able to engage in a rational discussion of the matter, we might just come up with a workable solution which keeps more people safe than we have now. (Mind you, I’m not saying that all people who weigh in on gun matters are irrational, but certainly the biggest organizations representing both sides of the matter tend to extremes at times.)
Perhaps you missed Aldebaran essentially doing that very thing?
Do you live in a high crime area where the danger is so high that it trumps the danger of having a gun in the same home in which a child is present?
Which do you think is more likely to happen: (1) you using the gun in self-defense or to save the life of someone in danger; or (2) Your kid gaining access to the gun and shooting himself or someone else?
If you think the chances of (1) happening are greater than (2) happening, do you still think the chances of (1) are great enough overall to accept the risk of (2)?
And there are a couple of other scenarios… (3) the risk of someone breaking into your home and stealing your gun to use for criminal acts; or (4) you shooting someone who you think is breaking into your house and it actually being your wife or your teenager sneaking in after curfew?; or (5) you confronting an intruder with a gun and him either wrestling it away from you and shooting you, or if he is armed, be more inclined to shoot you as fast as he can, lest he be shot by you (whereas if you were unarmed he would not be as inclined to harm you).
And didn’t he get pitted about twice daily for doing it?
Arm the students! Because university students aren’t known for experimenting with drugs, or for being under large amounts of stress and pressure. And they all have training in responding to armed attackers in chaotic and crowded situations. Brilliant!
I don’t know, I don’t read every thread, but if he had written it like catsix I would’ve had no problem.
thus goeth the pit.
For those who would like to see a bunch of drunk and stoned college kids toting guns around with them all day, I wonder how you think they’re going to be able to tell who the maniac is and who’s just another “good guy” with a gun. Should they all just shoot to to kill anybody else with a gun? Is this really a recipe for peace and order?