Students at Tech want to be armed! Poll at WSB Radio

[zesty]

I hate slippery slope arguments because that it was everyone always clings to in these ridiculous debates.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

It's an illogical fallacy "in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B."

I'm not about to start an argument with you or anyone else because my views are well documented in other threads, just drop the whole slippery slope BS. Maybe if we agreed to require a safety course we could get the other side to agree to let us carry in more places. You never know, sometimes compromise works...

I'm not trying to argue. I just stated why people equate carry laws to gun grabbing. I'm sorry you missed the point of my post which was that people need to calm the F down, LOL.

Anyway, I respectfully disagree. I think it's an illogical fallacy to believe that the the middle ground will stay static. I agree that compromise does work sometimes and I hate the "give no ground" to the other side mentality. That being said, requirements on carry permits is a bigger issue that many understand. If you're in favor of safety courses, it wouldn't hurt for you to understand why others are so opposed to them. Calling the other side's argument ridiculous, illogical, or BS won't win you any concessions.

 

[Shovelhead]

Armed students??? Aint gonna happen.. Especially in lib-controlled Atlanta

 

[Bulldawg165]

I'm not trying to argue. I just stated why people equate carry laws to gun grabbing. I'm sorry you missed the point of my post which was that people need to calm the F down, LOL.

Anyway, I respectfully disagree. I think it's an illogical fallacy to believe that the the middle ground will stay static. I agree that compromise does work sometimes and I hate the "give no ground" to the other side mentality. That being said, requirements on carry permits is a bigger issue that many understand. If you're in favor of safety courses, it wouldn't hurt for you to understand why others are so opposed to them. Calling the other side's argument ridiculous, illogical, or BS won't win you any concessions.

1) We both agree that the middle ground will not remain static. It never does, but I don't see why that means we can't find a middle ground that works in the present time. If I were given the opporunity to carry a firearm at work, on school grounds, in church, etc. in exchange for me taking a safety course, you can bet your bottom dollar that I'd do it in a heart beat. Some people here would rather keep things the way the are then compromise and get something that would make them much happier, all in the name of "pride" and "not backing down."

2) This is the first time I've ever called someone's arguments BS, and it's because I'm sick and tired of hearing the same two arguments everytime I raise a point. The arguments are as follows:
A) Slippery slope: "If we allow them to pass a gun safety course requirement in order for us to be able to do XXX, then the next thing you know they are going to require us to take refresher courses every week and these courses will cost $1,000,000 each and anyone who misses one will have their guns taken away and their entire family executed on the spot."
B) Ultimatum/Us vs Them: "You either think every single person who talks about doing anything to take away ANYONE's right to bear arms, even if they want to take away gun rights from convicted murderers, rapists, child molestors, etc should be burned at the stake OR you have your head in the sand and are completely clueless that by allowing them to do this you will eventually end up with your entire family executed in front of you."

Yes, both arguments are taken to absolutely ridiculous extremes by people on this forum and it's amazing how many people on here actually believe these things, even considering the massive support of the NRA and the relatively small support for anti-gun campaigns. These thoughts are part of the reason why it's so hard to get new gun legislation passed in our favor. Like it or not there is a negative stigma some people have associated with firearms, and the whole "never back down" attitude will get you nowhere without doing something to reassure them of their safety. I'm not advocating taking away our rights without getting something better in return, but I think there's a middle ground we could come to that would barely impact our freedoms (such as a safety course) while giving us much greater freedoms in return (carrying at work, in church, at school, etc).

 

[Goldie]

sorry, people tend to have a problem with giving the government more power over a constitutional right because it sounds like a "good idea"

no nanny state for me thank you very much

Is Texas a nanny state? For a Texas handgun license: "Is Training Required? Yes. You must complete a DPS-authorized gun safety training course taught by a certified instructor. The course is usually 10 to 15 hours and involves shooting practice. Some instructors require you to supply your own handgun."

 

[Bulldawg165]

Is Texas a nanny state? For a Texas handgun license: "Is Training Required? Yes. You must complete a DPS-authorized gun safety training course taught by a certified instructor. The course is usually 10 to 15 hours and involves shooting practice. Some instructors require you to supply your own handgun."

Don't even bother. I 100% agree with you and have pointed out how numerous states already require this and it hasn't turned into something outrageous but they won't listen. I personally would rather have a required safety course (too many retarded folks in our population) in exchange for more freedoms in where I carry, etc., but some people just can't grasp that concept. See my above post about the ridiculous slippery slope arguments I always hear.

 

[chucklenut]

You act like I actually WANT a nanny state... I'm just saying that the whole carrying guns on campus thing, especially for the students under 21 who can't even get a carry permit, isn't going to happen without some sort of concession on their part, such as the under 21 year olds taking a safety course or something. You can whine and ***** about constitutional rights all that you want, but the fact of the matter is that you can't get something for nothing, regardless of how much you rightfully (or think you rightfully) deserve it. You can react to the way things are and try to improve them or you can ***** about how they shouldn't be that way in the first place and accomplish nothing. Deal with it.

no ones advocating that students under 21 be allowed to carry a gun

and i never said you wanted a nanny state, but thats what you get when you compromise on issues like this. one thing leads to another.

furthermore its not about compromise (i said that a bit earlier in my post). its something that should have been allowed all along (that is legal adults exercising their rights). i dont think anyone should have special permission from any "authority" on this matter, american citizens are not children

and i am dealing with it. by voicing my opinion and letting others no its not ok to encroach on an individuals civil liberties, no matter what "sensible" legislation may be proposed. the anti-gun nuts dont compromise, yet they continue to have things passed in their favor, i mean you cant take away someones rights, you can erode them

 

[chucklenut]

Is Texas a nanny state? For a Texas handgun license: "Is Training Required? Yes. You must complete a DPS-authorized gun safety training course taught by a certified instructor. The course is usually 10 to 15 hours and involves shooting practice. Some instructors require you to supply your own handgun."

texas? you mean north mexico

and ya thats some bull**** to have to pay to have an instructor who half the time knows just as much as the person who has to take the class

im all for classes, when they are done on your own merit and time and because someone wants to

if yall wanna take classes by all means please do......but dont try and force me or anyone else to do it because its a "good idea"

i know plenty of good ideas already, like leaving the government out of peoples lives as much as possible

 

[Luthier]

+1.

It is no concern of mine if a college student is legally armed on campus other than the comfort that they are a force multiplier and strong deterrent to violent crime.

Those being disarmed is wholly another matter, that is in my mind illegal and those responsible for the disarming should be held liable for each and every crime of force. Their situation would change if those responsible were held as such.

The young men and women in college in general represent our best interest. An educated man/woman stripped of his/her rights is immoral.

 

[zesty]

A) Slippery slope: "If we allow them to pass a gun safety course requirement in order for us to be able to do XXX, then the next thing you know they are going to require us to take refresher courses every week and these courses will cost $1,000,000 each and anyone who misses one will have their guns taken away and their entire family executed on the spot."

I think this is a better example of how slippery slopes work:
ALL THE WAY DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE: GUN PROHIBITION IN ENGLAND AND SOME LESSONS FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES IN AMERICA

Slippery slopes are not inevitable, but neither are they imaginary. The British experience demonstrates that many civil liberties, including the right to arms, really can slowly slide all the way to the bottom of the slippery slope. While we have not aimed to convince readers to value any particular civil liberty, such as arms, speech, or protection from warrantless searches, we have attempted to show that it is reasonable for groups that do honor such rights, like the NRA, ACLU, or NACDL, to refuse to acquiesce in "reasonable" infringements of those rights. Even though, as John Maynard (p.465)Keynes observed, we are all dead in the long run, persons who cherish a particular civil liberty want that liberty to endure not just in their own lifetimes, but in the lives of subsequent generations. In the long run, the best way to protect a given civil liberty from destruction may be to resist even the smallest infringements in short run.

Personally, I don't have a huge problem with taking a class for a gun permit. If the permit is required, having to take a class doesn't change much. My problem is with being required to have a gun permit period.

 

[Bulldawg165]

I think this is a better example of how slippery slopes work:
ALL THE WAY DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE: GUN PROHIBITION IN ENGLAND AND SOME LESSONS FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES IN AMERICA


Personally, I don't have a huge problem with taking a class for a gun permit. If the permit is required, having to take a class doesn't change much. My problem is with being required to have a gun permit period.

I don't like the fact that I had to pay $75 and wait a couple of months for the right to carry either, but that requirement is not going to go away in our lifetime. For this reason I would much rather stop wasting time crying about how I think things SHOULD be and instead spend my time figuring out a way to make that permit give me much more freedom, such as carrying at work, on campus, in church, etc., even if it means giving up SOME things (such as having to take a class).