LSU's steps to being safer?

[madwabbit]

Correct me if I'm getting this wrong but some of you seem to think that if an active shooter situation happened on a college campus that allowed concealed carry permit holders to carry on campus that those permit holders would respond inappropriately and cause more confusion.

But historically what has happened in that exact situation?
What are you using as a basis for this conclusion?

The argument as I expect it (im not re-reading 6 pages) is more along the lines of when someone calls 911, the good guys show up and everyone with a gun is now "the bad guy". This doesn't even bring crossfire, etc into discussion.

But historically what has happened in that exact situation?
Answer: historically active shooters commit suicide upon effective armed response (I'm not saying bad guys don't shoot at good guys, just that as soon as they even suspect they may lose, they plug themselves.)

 

[JHenley17]

"What do you need a gun for, anyway?"
I get what those opposed are saying, I honestly feel the same way about college kids largely being immature, but I feel more strongly that government shouldn't make these decisions for people. That's no different than anyone telling you, "sorry, I don't think you need to have a gun. If anyone ever attacks, just wait for the police." And I think the estimates are a bit high. Just from what I've noticed, even in Louisiana, colleges are full of know-it-all liberals, not too many gun owners who could/would have a concealed handgun permit. The biggest classes are freshman classes with a few hundred people in one room. It could still get chaotic with just a handful of people, but it would hardly be a 12,000-man wild west shootout. I think education could solve the problems anticipated with people just firing into a crowd. If you want to be a hero, get close, or if you happen to be close, do what you can, otherwise, GTFO with everyone else. I feel like that should be an option, not just trip, stare down a barrel, and hope he doesn't shoot. A coincidence of positioning could save lives.

 

[dirty dan]

Why is it a "God given " right to carry wherever you want?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Our rights are not given by the government. Even our founders understood that rights were given by our creator.

 

[dirty dan]

I'm assuming most people use the "God-given" label due to the Declaration of Independence line of - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator" - However, the difference is in terminology only but not in application since Creation necessitates a god.

This exactly. Too many believe that our government gives us (allows) these rights. Too many are willing to give our government that dangerous power.

 

[dirty dan]

It's not that though. It's looking at it from a practical approach. I am a current LSU student. I would not want most of my fellow classmates to be armed. People argue all the time and get into little shuffles. It just wouldn't be safe. Most are not mature enough. Having a clause where you need advanced training to carry on campus would be better, but even then, think about how bad that could make a situation if something for hairy.

--Sent From My Galaxy S6

Then you (in particular) should never arm yourself...anywhere. On the basis of your own arguement, I don't trust your judgment and/or marksmanship and therefore you are a threat to my safety and the safety of my children. If you carry, you are a hypocrite.

BTW, being a "current LSU student" doesn't give you any special knowledge/insight on this subject. We've all been students before.

 

[whitsend]

Correct me if I'm getting this wrong but some of you seem to think that if an active shooter situation happened on a college campus that allowed concealed carry permit holders to carry on campus that those permit holders would respond inappropriately and cause more confusion.

But historically what has happened in that exact situation?
What are you using as a basis for this conclusion?

Logic.

If I were in an adjacent building to an active shooter situation while I was carrying, I would happily be selfish and try to escape while helping as many as possible escape. I'm not LEO, so it's not my job to stop the shooter. I recognize that it could become a far worse situation if I become involved. I don't want to be the hero, I want to live.

That being said, I've spoken with many non-LEO CHP holders that feel compelled to stop the threat, regardless if they have the skills to do so.

Oregon allows concealed carry permit holder to carry on college campuses. At least one one student at Umpqua Community College was carrying on the day of the shooting. He was in a building about 200 yards from the building where the shooting was happening. He responded correctly by not going to the building where the shooter was at. When officers came to the building he was in he notified the officers that he was carrying and all went well.

The thought that allowing CC on campus would mean 50%-60% of students carrying is not realistic. Are 50%-60% of students even over 21? Do 50%-60% of the general public that is legally able to carry even carry? How many students would actually carry? I would guess that not every class or even every building would have someone who was carrying. How would those carrying respond, that is the unknown, but evidently I have more faith in my fellow man than some of here.

 

[madwabbit]

Oregon allows concealed carry permit holder to carry on college campuses. At least one one student at Umpqua Community College was carrying on the day of the shooting. He was in a building about 200 yards from the building where the shooting was happening. He responded correctly by not going to the building where the shooter was at. When officers came to the building he was in he notified the officers that he was carrying and all went well.

The thought that allowing CC on campus would mean 50%-60% of students carrying is not realistic. Are 50%-60% of students even over 21? Do 50%-60% of the general public that is legally able to carry even carry? How many students would actually carry? I would guess that not every class or even every building would have someone who was carrying. How would those carrying respond, that is the unknown, but evidently I have more faith in my fellow man than some of here.

Spend some time browsing bayoushooter as a test sample. Many are in the camp that they carry for their protection alone, and if you wanted armed protection you should have been carrying. Others are in the camp that they'd play hero on the misguided confidence acquired via state minimum required training and/or a couple weekend classes.

I look at this from a point where I can argue with a liberal and call them an idiot. My favorite line is: People want to carry guns because YOU WONT PROTECT THEM. Qualify and Arm your faculty? Hire a staff of resource officers? Whatever the answer is... Don't students deserve to be safe in your school? Wouldnt they be better students if they weren't worried about being executed between classes? Why don't you ensure their safety? - this works great on liberals, it throws their own arguments in their face.

 

[DAVE_M]

Spend some time browsing bayoushooter as a test sample. Many are in the camp that they carry for their protection alone, and if you wanted armed protection you should have been carrying. Others are in the camp that they'd play hero on the misguided confidence acquired via state minimum required training and/or a couple weekend classes.

I look at this from a point where I can argue with a liberal and call them an idiot. My favorite line is: People want to carry guns because YOU WONT PROTECT THEM. Qualify and Arm your faculty? Hire a staff of resource officers? Whatever the answer is... Don't students deserve to be safe in your school? Wouldnt they be better students if they weren't worried about being executed between classes? Why don't you ensure their safety? - this works great on liberals, it throws their own arguments in their face.

+1

I got my permit... for my protection and my family. If protecting myself and my family means that I have to flee, then I will. It's not my job to be the hero.

 

[MOTOR51]

Our rights are not given by the government. Even our founders understood that rights were given by our creator.

There are rules and guidelines with most anything. You elect people to make the rules and that's what they do. I would hope you would agree that dangerous felons should lose their gun privileges.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DAVE_M]

There are rules and guidelines with most anything. You elect people to make the rules and that's what they do. I would hope you would agree that dangerous felons should lose their gun privileges.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Stop making sense!

You have the right to do whatever the hell you want to do... but there is always a consequence (or more).

 

[dirty dan]

There are rules and guidelines with most anything. You elect people to make the rules and that's what they do. I would hope you would agree that dangerous felons should lose their gun privileges.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

S.F.W.????
The fact that criminals can lose their rights has absolutely ZERO to do with college age adults, that have the right to carry concealed being allowed (or not), to carry on campus. Put your bottle down and go re-read the thread...or better yet have an adult explain it to you. My point is that many of the prima donnas (deeming themselves better trained and more responsible than you) on this forum have decided that college students shouldn't be allowed the same right as everyone else. If you choose to carry and want to deny that RIGHT to others because they are students or are in school then you are clearly a hypocrite. You can try to spin and sugar coat your reasons any way you like, but it doesn't change that fact that you are a hypocrite.

 

[MOTOR51]

S.F.W.????
The fact that criminals can lose their rights has absolutely ZERO to do with college age adults, that have the right to carry concealed being allowed (or not), to carry on campus. Put your bottle down and go re-read the thread...or better yet have an adult explain it to you. My point is that many of the prima donnas (deeming themselves better trained and more responsible than you) on this forum have decided that college students shouldn't be allowed the same right as everyone else. If you choose to carry and want to deny that RIGHT to others because they are students or are in school then you are clearly a hypocrite. You can try to spin and sugar coat your reasons any way you like, but it doesn't change that fact that you are a hypocrite.

Why are you so angry? You can't have it your way so you resort to tantrums and name calling? A lot of college classes require some debating which you obviously do not have the maturity to do. I would def not feel safer with you walking around my kids with a firearm. It is this attitude that will ensure you will never carry on a college campus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[alpinehyperlite]

This exactly. Too many believe that our government gives us (allows) these rights. Too many are willing to give our government that dangerous power.

Um..... The authors of the constitution were the government at the time that it was written......... So technically the government did give (allow) said rights. God whichever one you believe in didn't pen that stuff down on paper and say "I grant these rights".

 

[sliguns]

the government did give (allow) said rights.

I'd say the gov't did not, in any way, GIVE or ALLOW our Rights. To say they gave/allow them implies that they have the power to give/allow natural rights. This is not the case.

The government RECOGNIZED that Humanity is born with certain Unalienable Rights: "We hold these truths to be self-evident" - AKA - We recognize the follow truths. "That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" - AKA - Man is given Unalienable Rights by their Creator. "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted" - AKA - Governments are instituted for the purpose of SECURING these unalienable Rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.....That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.....That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

If you can read the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, and come to conclusion that the Gov't has the power to give Rights, then you clearly view government as a god. Another human being cannot GIVE Rights to another human being, all they can do is recognize and/or respect them. Additionally, there are only 2 options from which our Rights come - Natural Rights from our Humanity (Atheists version of God-given Rights) or God-given Rights (Theists version of Natural Rights).

 

[alpinehyperlite]

The government decided which "rights" were bestowed upon the people. Natural rights are the rights to food water and shelter and emotion. Anything else is man made.

 

[whitsend]

I'd say the gov't did not, in any way, GIVE or ALLOW our Rights. To say they gave/allow them implies that they have the power to give/allow natural rights. This is not the case.

The government RECOGNIZED that Humanity is born with certain Unalienable Rights: "We hold these truths to be self-evident" - AKA - We recognize the follow truths. "That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" - AKA - Man is given Unalienable Rights by their Creator. "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted" - AKA - Governments are instituted for the purpose of SECURING these unalienable Rights.



If you can read the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, and come to conclusion that the Gov't has the power to give Rights, then you clearly view government as a god. Another human being cannot GIVE Rights to another human being, all they can do is recognize and/or respect them. Additionally, there are only 2 options from which our Rights come - Natural Rights from our Humanity (Atheists version of God-given Rights) or God-given Rights (Theists version of Natural Rights).

Hush! We don't need facts to enter this discussion.

 

[sliguns]

The government decided which "rights" were bestowed upon the people. Natural rights are the rights to food water and shelter and emotion. Anything else is man made.

So I don't have the Natural Right to Life?

We do not have a natural right to food-water-shelter, you sound like a socialist-collectivist liberal here. And no, the gov't did not decide which rights were bestowed upon the people, the people reasoned what natural rights humanity was endowed with from their Creator and formed a gov't to secure them as such. You place waaaaay toooo much authority/power upon gov't.

It would do everyone here good (myself included) to read more about the difference between "Negative Rights" vs. "Positive Rights". Natural rights — *negative rights* — pertain to freedom from the uninvited interventions of others (Life & Liberty). Respect for negative rights requires merely that we abstain from pushing one another around. Positive rights, by contrast, require that we be provided with goods or services (food, water, shelter) at the expense of other persons (time/talent/ability/productivity), which can only be accomplished by systematic force/coercion. This idea is also known as the doctrine of entitlements; that is, some people are said to be entitled to that which is earned by other people. *Positive rights* trump freedom.

 

[JadeRaven]

It's not that though. It's looking at it from a practical approach. I am a current LSU student. I would not want most of my fellow classmates to be armed. People argue all the time and get into little shuffles. It just wouldn't be safe. Most are not mature enough. Having a clause where you need advanced training to carry on campus would be better, but even then, think about how bad that could make a situation if something for hairy.

--Sent From My Galaxy S6

Wow. I forgot that college kids would simply start killing each other anytime they disagree.

Then you (in particular) should never arm yourself...anywhere. On the basis of your own arguement, I don't trust your judgment and/or marksmanship and therefore you are a threat to my safety and the safety of my children. If you carry, you are a hypocrite.

BTW, being a "current LSU student" doesn't give you any special knowledge/insight on this subject. We've all been students before.

Exactly. "I am good enough, but noone else is." "I need it, but nobody else does."

And yeah, we all went to college, we know that some of these students are idiots, but outside of college, the world is even more full of idiots, and we let them carry with and without permits.

I think some of these guys need to wake up and acknowledge that they're liberals. It's okay to be a liberal, just be honest with yourself.

 

[JadeRaven]

The government decided which "rights" were bestowed upon the people. Natural rights are the rights to food water and shelter and emotion. Anything else is man made.

Wow!

Again, some people need to just own up to being liberals.

 

[Emperor]

I'd say the gov't did not, in any way, GIVE or ALLOW our Rights. To say they gave/allow them implies that they have the power to give/allow natural rights. This is not the case.

The government RECOGNIZED that Humanity is born with certain Unalienable Rights: "We hold these truths to be self-evident" - AKA - We recognize the follow truths. "That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" - AKA - Man is given Unalienable Rights by their Creator. "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted" - AKA - Governments are instituted for the purpose of SECURING these unalienable Rights.



If you can read the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, and come to conclusion that the Gov't has the power to give Rights, then you clearly view government as a god. Another human being cannot GIVE Rights to another human being, all they can do is recognize and/or respect them. Additionally, there are only 2 options from which our Rights come - Natural Rights from our Humanity (Atheists version of God-given Rights) or God-given Rights (Theists version of Natural Rights).

I am about as non religious as anyone and I realize the truth of this post to be self evident! The founders were very religious oriented. They saw what man-made/given Rights (the word Rights used very loosely), looked like first hand; hence they become, "The Founders." It is stunning how in the modern day from then (it's only been 239 years for Christ's sake), people conveniently discount that very important attribute about their Colonial existence.

If you (collectively), marginalize Judeo-Christian faith and values today, you can effectively marginalize the intent of Constitution to fit any agenda against its tenets. Be wary of those that do just that!

Look, you can choose to be a non-believer (like myself), but you cannot ignore what took place and by what faith. Why don't the people in America that don't want to follow the old Constitution find a new land and start another to fit their ideologies? Antarctica is still available!