Governor Kasich Legalizes Campus Carry. What Do You Think?

[marawuti]

I do expect them to assault people at a higher rate. You are saying this is not the case. Well, we both have to provide evidence to support our respective claims. I am not motivated to take the time to do this, so I do have to concede that I am speculating. But unless you are prepared to present evidence that LEOs do not assault at a higher rate, you, too, are speculating.

Not exactly speculation on my part, but I do not have what would be convincing to one who has their mind made up based on speculation. My eldest son is a LEO, a Lt, in a Bay Area city.
This is the kind of statistical minutiae which we would all love to have but is a totally unrealistic bookkeeping load in the law enforcement context.

Misleading. I would agree that a non-trained person - like me - is more likely to assault in the presence of provocation than a police officer. But - and this is the point - the police officer is almost certainly going to be exposed to hundreds, if not thousands more instances where they are provoked (compared to a desk jockey like me).

Misleading? Your argumentation technique is based on putting one on the defensive by making a presumptuous categorization at the outset. It is specious without further development in your statement.

Your probabilistic argument is speculation based on speculation so I'll ignore it.

 

[expos4ever]

Not exactly speculation on my part, but I do not have what would be convincing to one who has their mind made up based on speculation.

This is not a valid argument: You speculated in the sense that you do not provide evidence to support your claim. Neither did I, so I, too, am speculating as I conceded.

Misleading? Your argumentation technique is based on putting one on the defensive by making a presumptuous categorization at the outset. It is specious without further development in your statement.

This is unclear. Let's review. The statement that got this particular sub-issue off and running was this:

These stats are all public knowledge. Legal gun owners don't commit crimes. In fact they commit crimes at a lower level than police officers.

This poster is trying to argue that legal owners of guns "do not commit crimes" since even police officers commit more crimes than these legal gun owners.

My point is that this is a misleading comparison. It is like saying there is no problem with people driving too fast because fast drivers have accidents less often than professional race drivers. Well, of course professional race drivers have a high accident rate - they drive fast all the time and in settings where the risk of an accident is very high. So obviously the regular Joe who drives fast will have a lower rate of accidents. But that is hardly an argument that is OK to let regular people drive fast.

Likewise, it is obvious that police officers will commit crimes more often than legal gun owners precisely because police officers are routinely placed in situations where they are tempted to use their authority to commit a crime (for example, assault someone). So even if it is true that a legal gun owner commits crime at a lower rate than a police officer, this is not really much of an argument in defence of the proposition that legal gun owners do not commit crimes (or commit them at a low rate).

Now, please deal with my argument.

 

[marawuti]

. . . it is obvious that police officers will commit crimes more often than legal gun owners precisely because police officers are routinely placed in situations where they are tempted to use their authority to commit a crime (for example, assault someone).

I'm guessing that your emphasized "obvious" refers to or echoes your prior use of the mathematical concept of an infinite set of events approaches an asymptotic truth. Lots of exposure must result in a preconceived action. [And here is where your preconceptions (your putative inner life) reveal themselves.] This has no basis in logic nor extant data and is thus a fallacious argument. You believe it, but it is in no way obviously true.

So even if it is true that a legal gun owner commits crime at a lower rate than a police officer, this is not really much of an argument in defence of the proposition that legal gun owners do not commit crimes (or commit them at a low rate).

The "so" implies that this statement follows from the prior statement. Not even close. It's a separate issue to wit:
First, in this statement you clearly acknowledge jimmyjimmy's oversimplification to "no crimes" and reveal your realization that you are attacking a straw man.
Secondly, re-read the above sentence. It is self contradictory.
If your point is simply that jimmyjimmy misspoke that legal gun owners commit no crimes, whoopee. You seem to acknowledge that this was not the point then charge on to knock it down.

Now, please deal with my argument.

If you would like to restate your contention, press on.
Please exclude similes.

 

[AmusingMargaret]

On Monday Ohio Governor John Kasich (R) signed Senate Bill 199, thereby legalizing concealed carry on college and university campuses where school trustees vote to allow it. Source

What do you think about this? If you have a son or daughter who is a college student, would you feel safer if they were concealed carrying a handgun on campus? Will this lead to fewer people being injured/killed if there are attacks? Less likely muggings or rapes? I think it could if the gun owners are responsible.

It would be comforting to know that there are other guns around if an active shooter walks on campus. Of course, the gun owners should be properly trained and registered with the campus police. Definitely a good idea to have sane people with gun access in case of emergency.

 

[AmusingMargaret]

As a professor it's comforting to know that when an upset student comes to argue with me about how it's not possible that they failed the exam, and if I don't give them a C, I ruin their life and their job prospects, that they might now be carrying a gun.

As proven time and time again, the rules won't stop a person from bringing a gun on campus and using it, nor will it encourage them. If your student was going to do something like this, they would do it regardless of the law or the rules. Perhaps get yourself a gun and learn how to use it?

 

[AmusingMargaret]

YES EVERY state should have this. If you ask me there should be NO SUCH THING as a gun free zone.

There is probably no such thing as a gun free zone. "No Guns Allowed" signs often makes a person be sure to not enter there unarmed. Those businesses have, after all, just informed criminals they have no guns.

 

[The Hammer of Witches]

Gun free zones are stupid, good job Governor Kasich.

 

[Tallguy88]

As a professor it's comforting to know that when an upset student comes to argue with me about how it's not possible that they failed the exam, and if I don't give them a C, I ruin their life and their job prospects, that they might now be carrying a gun.

Nothing prevented that scenario before this law was passed.

 

[Tallguy88]

It will still be the prerogative of college boards to determine whether they will permit concealed carry on their campus. The Ohio Conference of the American Association of University Professors is in vehement, vocal opposition, as are many professionals working in higher education across the country.

If I'm understanding correctly, in Ohio you must be at least 21 years of age in order to purchase a handgun. As one of the many undergraduates who are well under that age I'd feel more vulnerable, not less, if I were a student on a campus with an open carry policy.

In my state the legislature is considering legislation making campus carry legal for anyone with a CCHL regardless of how the school feels about it.

Also, are you sure you mean "open carry"? Very few states have open carry. My understanding is that this only applies to concealed carry.

 

[Tallguy88]

If they have a CCW it usually means that they have met certain requirements that vary by state, but along with age usually include a clean criminal record and usually ( if not always either a gun safety course OR prove of experenice with firearms. If they do not have a CCW then chances are good they may be already carrying, anyway.

Exactly. The fact remains that to obtain a CCHL, you have to pass a FBI background check, including submitting fingerprints, have not been convicted of a felony or violent misdomenor, not have been committed to a mental institution, and not be a user of illegal drugs including marijuana.

People with concealed carry licenses are among the most law abiding groups in the country, statistically less likely to commit a crime (any crime) than a cop.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

Nothing prevented that scenario before this law was passed.

No. and generally, I'm all for legalizing things that people do anyway despite them currently being illegal. But I draw a line if it has the potential to harm others.

 

[Tallguy88]

No. and generally, I'm all for legalizing things that people do anyway despite them currently being illegal. But I draw a line if it has the potential to harm others.

Lots of ordinary things have greater potential to harm others than a legally carrying CCHL holder. Why is this the line in the sand? As I already stated, and I can back it up with stats, people with concealed carry licenses are one of the most law-abiding groups of citizens in the country.

 

[dogs4thewin]

No. and generally, I'm all for legalizing things that people do anyway despite them currently being illegal. But I draw a line if it has the potential to harm others.

Well, anything can harm others if abused. It is legal to drink ( supposing someone is at least 21), yet you do not have to be behind the wheel to be a danger to yourself OR others while drinking. With all due respect, you and I both know that banning alcohol was tried in the past and you and I both know it did not lasts long ( In fact, it did not even last a score ( 20 years).

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

My problem with those against guns is their statements like "If we didn't have guns, there would be no shootings!". Thats crazy. Punish the majority because of the minority? Its like those who want to cut those on government help because the minority abuse it. What if we used that logic on us christians? Lets ban christiainty from America because a few choose to use it for evil instead. See how silly that sounds.

At some point soon I am buying a gun (a pistol) and plan to have a permit to carry it around with me. I am fine with more gun laws in terms of keeping them out of peoples hands who are at risk for doing something stupid with them. Though I am not for anything in regards to banning. Like them banning assault rifles made no sense to me. I wanted one that I would keep locked up in the super crazy chance something big happened like there was a nuclear war and we had to defend our house against people with other weapons wanting to ransack and kill us.

Many are like "But their only purpose is to kill, and to kill many people!". Well yes and no. I mean technically the bullets kills, not the gun. Sarcasm aside guns don't have to be meant to kill. You only kill someone if you hit them right with the shot. Me? With my pistol if I were ever forced to use it I'd shoot the person in the arms or legs. I want to disable them, not kill them.

And really anything can be used to kill. We have laws that cover most anything today. Such as car. Vehicular manslaughter. I can agree we have a higher degree of gun violence then alot of countries. But in countries that don't really allow guns, there is still murder and violence, just using other methods. As most know if you really want to kill someone, you will find a way. So banning a gun won't stop that stuff from happening.

And usually it doesn't matter because gun bans actually just stop the innocent civilians that would buy one. Not the criminals who can find illegal ways to get them anyways. If you have ever gone to the "dark web" (PLEASE DON'T), you can find ANY weapon you can think of to buy. From pistols to assault rifles. To more crazy things like flame throwers, grenades, and RPG, lethal gas....etc.

 

[Tull]

How wonderful it is that we live in a society with lots of nice rules for law abiding citizens which place them at a severe disadvantage with our non law abiding citizens....a wonderful synchronicity and symphony of stupidity.

 

[Archivist]

How wonderful it is that we live in a society with lots of nice rules for law abiding citizens which place them at a severe disadvantage with our non law abiding citizens....a wonderful synchronicity and symphony of stupidity.

Do we really want students keeping guns in their dorm rooms? How many of hose saying this law is a good idea have actually lived on a college campus?

Again, I fund it interesting that the three posters who identified themselves as working in academia all said this is a bad idea.

 

[expos4ever]

Lots of ordinary things have greater potential to harm others than a legally carrying CCHL holder.

Is this the "if you want to ban guns why not ban cars which kill more people" argument?

If so, there is a big problem: cars have a primary purpose which is at least arguably beneficial to society (convenient transportation). A concealed gun has no purpose other than to shoot at people. So this line of reasoning really does not work.

As I already stated, and I can back it up with stats, people with concealed carry licenses are one of the most law-abiding groups of citizens in the country.

This may be true, but it certainly does not follow that it is a good idea to allow people to carry guns. Every other advanced free nation in the world has decided letting citizens carry guns around is a bad idea.

Is the US to the only country that has it right?

 

[expos4ever]

My problem with those against guns is their statements like "If we didn't have guns, there would be no shootings!". Thats crazy. Punish the majority because of the minority?

Imagine someone proposed a law that everyone should be allowed to have a pet lion.

That would be clearly insane - even if the overwhelming majority of lion-owners ensured their lion never escaped into the neighbourhood we can be sure that sooner or later a lion will get out (either by accident or by intention) and start killing people.

 

[expos4ever]

How wonderful it is that we live in a society with lots of nice rules for law abiding citizens which place them at a severe disadvantage with our non law abiding citizens....a wonderful synchronicity and symphony of stupidity.

The stupidity lies in this bizarre corner of American culture that insists on the right for citizens to be armed. Almost all other prosperous free nations have recognized the folly of an armed citizenry.

It is stupid for a wide range of reasons. One of them is that studies have shown that having a gun in the home increases the risk of violent death for the occupants of the home.

Again, we can get into all the reasons against gun freedom. However, it should be extremely telling that it is basically only the USA that has a sizeable segment of the population that wants guns - all other free prosperous peoples realize its a bad idea.

 

[expos4ever]

Like them banning assault rifles made no sense to me. I wanted one that I would keep locked up in the super crazy chance something big happened like there was a nuclear war and we had to defend our house against people with other weapons wanting to ransack and kill us.

OK then, which is more likely:

1. at some point in the future, there will be a nuclear war and you have to defend your house against people with other weapons wanting to ransack and kill you;

2. at some point in the future, you will be fired unjustly, or find your spouse has cheated on you. And you get really really angry. Angry enough to lose your temper and take out that assault rifle?