Tuesday, November 13, 2012

The Utter Stupidity of Guns on Campus

Local news reports
Two people suffered minor injuries on Nov. 9 when a gun accidentally went off at the University of Colorado School of Dental Medicine at the Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora. 

A spokesman for the university says the owner of the gun is a CU employee and is currently on administrative leave. 

The injuries did not require hospitalization. 9NEWS received two newstips about the incident on Monday, one of which identified the person who owned the gun as a female staff member. 

University spokesman Dan Meyers says campus police are investigating the incident, and that the gun's owner had a concealed carry permit for it. 

The University of Colorado for many years enforced a ban on all weapons on its campuses, but in March 2012 the Colorado Supreme Court struck down the university's gun ban, which means visitors and staff members with a valid concealed carry permit are allowed to have guns on campus.
Where there are guns there is gun misuse.  It's a scientific and philosophical axiom.  In spite of all the pro-gun claims to the contrary, concealed carry permit holders are no safer or more responsible than anybody else. Why would they be, the requirements for obtaining the permit are so lax that anybody can get one.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

14 comments:

  1. No one said that accidents don't happen. What we've shown you repeatedly is that they're rare. You're the one who can't understand what rare means.

    Here's another point to compare: How many accidents happen to license holders and how many crimes do they commit stood up against the number of rapes, muggings, and murders done on campus by thugs without government permission?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NO gun accidents happen to people who don't have them.

      The number of rapes, muggings and murders in countries with strict gun regulation where a gun is used are far lower than ours.

      Gun regulation works, so long as it is uniform and enforced.

      Delete
    2. If there were no guns, there would be no gun accidents. The fact that you consistently avoid is that there are 300,000,000+ guns in this country. Most of those are unlicensed and unregistered. You remind me of a physics professor I had in college. When he reached a point in an equation that wasn't working out for him, he said, here we wave our hands, and the answer appears. You can't just wave your hands and make guns go away.

      But let's look at the facts about homicide and rape:

      The murder rate in Russia, a country with strict gun control, is four times ours. In South Africa, also a nation with strict gun laws, it's about seven times ours. In the Czech Republic, it's a quarter of ours, but the Czechs have gun laws similar to our own.

      The rate of rape per 100,000 in England and Wales is 28.8. In Northern Ireland, it's 27.7. New Zealand has 25.8 rapes per 100,000. Jamaica's is 24.4. Ours is 27.3. Notice that every nation cited there has strict gun laws, with the exception of the United States.

      Those numbers come from the United Nations crime reports, among other sources. I didn't find mugging statistics in my quick search. I'll leave that for you as homework.

      Delete
  2. "What we've shown you repeatedly is that they're rare. You're the one who can't understand what rare means."

    Really, you've shown us that they are rare. Then you no doubt have a link to actual fucking statistics, sixgunboy.

    "Here's another point to compare: How many accidents happen to license holders and how many crimes do they commit stood up against the number of rapes, muggings, and murders done on campus by thugs without government permission?"

    You're an English instructor?

    "and how many crimes do they commit stood up against the number"

    Yepper, that there is some real swell grammar.

    Moving on; I'm pretty certain that mikeb302000's OP said nothing about DELIBERATE criminal activity. We are all, unlike many of your fellow gunzloonz, aware that there is a disctinction between an accident and a deliberate criminal act*. Why, if it had been deliberate, she'da double-tapped both of them mofo's; no ambulance would be required, just a hearse.

    Did anyone ever tell you, Greggie, that you write like Hemingway might have if he were still alive? I mean he would prolly be at least as fucking demented as you are.



    * But, then again, who knows? maybe there is such a thing as "accidental rape". We could check with that bunch of dickheads who are in favor of defining rape as "legitimate".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Democommie, I don't expect you to understand English grammar. You've already demonstrated that English isn't a language that you're capable of using. Regarding links to sources, they've been posted by my side many times here. You haven't been coming around much lately, not that any of us are sad about that.

      Delete
    2. democommie said:

      "Moving on; I'm pretty certain that mikeb302000's OP said nothing about DELIBERATE criminal activity. We are all, unlike many of your fellow gunzloonz, aware that there is a disctinction between an accident and a deliberate criminal act*."

      Yes, he was talking about accidents. But that is the actual point, isn't it. If you try to take away guns to prevent the rare accidents from occurring, you simultaneously deny citizens the right to defend themselves from the less rare acts of violent crime.

      The real question here is did you deliberately blow right past his actual point and focus on typos or are you just incapable of wrapping your head around the complexity of the situation presented?

      Delete
  3. For many years, I ran an entry level stats course in a big Midwestern U. Stats being what it is, people cheated. I ran the cheating court too. We failed people. Sometimes we threw them out of school.

    So, we take a kid who has just been told that he has failed a key course, and you fucking NRA morons want him to be armed at this honor court? No FUCKING WAY.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The minimum age for a license is twenty-one in most states. Getting that license means passing a background check and having the organization to pass the other requirements. It's more likely that the ones who could carry legally would be professors and staff.

      But consider this: The student who knows he's likely to be given an F or expelled won't ask permission to carry a gun. Students like that who form the intent to kill will just carry. Why do you think that someone who plans to commit murder would worry about a misdemeanor crime of carrying a handgun illegally?

      Delete
    2. But consider this: The student who knows he's likely to be given an F or expelled won't ask permission to carry a gun. Students like that who form the intent to kill will just carry.

      Bullshit! That is completely unsubstantiated rubbish you pulled out of your arse.

      People do not tend to carry when it is not allowed, and when they do and carrying is illegal they face detection and being stopped before they can use their firearm as they intend.

      Delete
    3. No, Dog Gone, I was working with the scenario that Anonymous proposed. A student who's been accused of cheating gets an appointment to go before the honor court. He's likely to know his chances of being found guilty. He doesn't have to pass through a metal detector on the way to the session. If he decides to bring a gun, what's to stop him? A sign?

      My students come in with backpacks and purses and baggy clothes every day. We don't search them. Handguns are easy to conceal. Your confidence in being able to spot someone with a gun is astonishing. You boast about your brains, but sometime, you ought to use them.

      What I'm saying here is that allowing responsible people who have gone through the process to carry handguns legally will improve the odds if someone decides to bring a gun illegally. As things stand, we have practically no protection from that person, albeit a rare occurance.

      Delete
    4. Greg, the issue is not the carrying of arms by civilians. If civilians where not endowed with such arms (due to the Government neglecting it's duty, civilians may currently possess lethal weapons) there would not exist the option to carry or use a weapon in an unlawful manner.

      If there is no weapon, therefore no unlawful use of (nonexistent) weapon may occur.

      Delete
    5. E.N. - I suppose the government should prohibit people from carrying bats, sharp kitchen utensils, bleach, pesticides, or anything else that is capable of being used as a lethal weapon?

      Delete
    6. dog gone said?:
      "People do not tend to carry when it is not allowed, and when they do and carrying is illegal they face detection and being stopped before they can use their firearm as they intend."

      And just who, pray tell, is there to stop them? Who stopped Cho and Kazmierczak and Brown and Davidson?

      Tell me again who they are likely to be stopped?

      Delete
  4. "People do not tend to carry when it is not allowed, and when they do and carrying is illegal they face detection and being stopped before they can use their firearm as they intend."

    So we have just imagined every mass shooting that has occured on a school campus in the past? The newspapers got it wrong and all of these people were detected and stopped before they could shoot anyone?

    ReplyDelete