Gun control on campus

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't teach on a campus that allowed concealed weapons, either.

This is the basis that I stated that with.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if it could be statistically PROVEN that concealed weapons make you safer? I mean, proven in a manner you would accept as valid.

What if YOU designed the study, and lo and behold, the results surprised YOU so you had everything double-checked and triple-checked and finally you were convinced that it was so. Hypothetically speaking, would you teach at a campus that allowed concealed weapons after proving the above to your own satisfaction?

[slickss]

I don't know. Maybe.

Even if I managed to persuade myself, I think I would have a problem convincing others. You see, anti-gun people, like myself, just don't feel safe in a room with 200 people all carrying guns. Knowing that any one of them would need exactly 1.5 seconds to instantly kill me, bothers me.

Another way of saying it is that increased safety with guns contradicts what I believe to be logic. If you presented me with a thorough, very well-made report that states that driving twice the speed limit increases traffic safety, I still wouldn't believe you. Yes, an extreme example, but I think it highlights my point.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know. Maybe.

Even if I managed to persuade myself, I think I would have a problem convincing others. You see, anti-gun people, like myself, just don't feel safe in a room with 200 people all carrying guns. Knowing that any one of them would need exactly 1.5 seconds to instantly kill me, bothers me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, I thought it was 1-in-50. So only 4 people would have a gun. Maybe. And none of them know who else has a gun in the room.

How many people do you think *want* to kill you?

Why do you feel safe if the people with guns have badges? They still would need only 1.5 seconds to instantly kill you.

[ QUOTE ]
Another way of saying it is that increased safety with guns contradicts what I believe to be logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're going to claim a contradiction in logic, you should be prepared to back such a claim - with actual logic, not just emotion.

[ QUOTE ]
If you presented me with a thorough, very well-made report that states that driving twice the speed limit increases traffic safety, I still wouldn't believe you. Yes, an extreme example, but I think it highlights my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does. The point that you've already made up your mind and aren't going to listen to logic, only what your emotions tell you.

But that's fine. You can have your beliefs - nobody wants to deny you this guilty pleasure.

[slickss]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you feel safe if the people with guns have badges? They still would need only 1.5 seconds to instantly kill you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I would. You may call me naive, but I trust the random police officer with a gun a lot more than I trust the random civilian with a gun. Stop asking me to re-confirm this, it isn't the first time I've done it for you.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you feel safe if the people with guns have badges? They still would need only 1.5 seconds to instantly kill you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I would. You may call me naive, but I trust the random police officer with a gun a lot more than I trust the random civilian with a gun. Stop asking me to re-confirm this, it isn't the first time I've done it for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not asking IF you do, I'm asking WHY you do.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you feel safe if the people with guns have badges? They still would need only 1.5 seconds to instantly kill you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I would. You may call me naive, but I trust the random police officer with a gun a lot more than I trust the random civilian with a gun. Stop asking me to re-confirm this, it isn't the first time I've done it for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not asking IF you do, I'm asking WHY you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you trust your banker to conduct financial transactions more accurately than a random person on the street? Why or why not?

[slickss]

pvn: We seem to be debating the same thing in two different threads. Here is my last answer in the other one:

[ QUOTE ]
Police officers are certain individuals with elevated rights, given to "serve and protect". Even if you took away their guns, they'd still be able to do things that you wouldn't (legally). If you don't trust them at all, how could you agree with any of this?

Furthermore, I know they are trained to handle a firearm and what to do in various situations. I also find it less likely that they are insane. With you, I don't know anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be critical to increasing the rights of certain people, and I respect that. However, I find it necessary to have law-enforcement. And, for them to enforce the law, I find it necessary for them to get certain exceptions that others do not.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you trust your banker to conduct financial transactions more accurately than a random person on the street? Why or why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because *I* selected the banker.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you trust your banker to conduct financial transactions more accurately than a random person on the street? Why or why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because *I* selected the banker.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I indirectly select police. Sheriffs are elected and then deputies are hired by the sheriff to serve under him or her.

[slickss]

pvn: With your distrust in all others but yourself, how do you suggest we acquire law-enforcement, if any?