CC on Campus

[cajungunslinger]

The jackass at 0:55 pisses me off!!!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEjZFBI6cM8[/ame]

 

[aroundlsu]

Looking at his target, looks like a little too much trigger slap. I know that 7-8 o'clock grouping well.

 

[dawg23]

Looking at his target, looks like a little too much trigger slap. I know that 7-8 o'clock grouping well.

More of an anticipation flinch.

Either way, he needs a lot more training/practice before he fires a weapon in a crowded environment.

 

[owen502]

More of an anticipation flinch.

Either way, he needs a lot more training/practice before he fires a weapon in a crowded environment.

Seems good enough for a <10' encounter in a classroom.

Is it better for him to accidentally shoot one bystander or for the bad guy to kill them all?

 

[mcinfantry]

Seems good enough for a <10' encounter in a classroom.

Is it better for him to accidentally shoot one bystander or for the bad guy to kill them all?

ill take shooting the bystander than everyone for 10, owen... (and that includes ME being shot)

 

[dawg23]

Seems good enough for a <10' encounter in a classroom.

Is it better for him to accidentally shoot one bystander or for the bad guy to kill them all?

Not sure where you came up with the "< than 10 ft.", but it sounds a little off for most classrooms, libraries, cafeterias, student unions and sports venues.

I also think there is a better choice than your "trade 1 for 10" ......... recognizing that such a shooting would create a massive outcry to once again ban guns on campus. The better choice would be to ensure that the weapons carriers have the training and practice that would minimize the chances of their shooting an innocent bystander.

I am in favor of allowing concealed carry in schools if there are rigorous proficiency standards ............... far above those required for "normal" CCW in this state.

 

[owen502]

I would bet that many cops shoot just like that, and they are allowed to carry guns.??

 

[Nolacopusmc]

Not sure where you came up with the "< than 10 ft.", but it sounds a little off for most classrooms, libraries, cafeterias, student unions and sports venues.

I also think there is a better choice than your "trade 1 for 10" ......... recognizing that such a shooting would create a massive outcry to once again ban guns on campus. The better choice would be to ensure that the weapons carriers have the training and practice that would minimize the chances of their shooting an innocent bystander.

I am in favor of allowing concealed carry in schools if there are rigorous proficiency standards ............... far above those required for "normal" CCW in this state.

Why way more for students instead of "regular" CHP holders?

 

[owen502]

I am in favor of allowing concealed carry in schools if there are rigorous proficiency standards ............... far above those required for "normal" CCW in this state.

That is a utterly ridiculous statement. What is the difference between a classroom and a movie theater? Or a restaurant? What is it about a classroom that makes it special that there should be extra training required.

Don't get me wrong, the training requirements are a joke for a CHP, but don't argue that a classroom is special.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

The classroom is special because it is currently holy ground, and because as Dawg so aptly stated - if you plug a student, then the anti's will want to ban EVERYTHING "FOR THE CHILDREN".

Sure, if you have to shoot in a theater the same thing could happen, but we can carry in theaters.

It pisses me off that I'm not supposed to carry in a bar because some other ******* is drinking. What if I'm not? What if I have to defend myself from some drunk *******? I rarely go to bars, but that goes back to the law being written for the lowest common denominator.
I honestly think the three day class should be what it takes to carry - annually recertified - but the gun grabbers would abuse that, turning it into a 5 day... making it such that schools had a hard time qualifying to be an authorized facility... and few people would actually carry.

I agree with da PANG.

 

[dawg23]

That is a utterly ridiculous statement. What is the difference between a classroom and a movie theater? Or a restaurant? What is it about a classroom that makes it special that there should be extra training required.

Don't get me wrong, the training requirements are a joke for a CHP, but don't argue that a classroom is special.

I'll pretend that you are serious..............so I'll try to provide what should be an intuitively obvious answer to an asinine question.

Ever hear of the Federal Air Marshall qualifications ?
Ever wonder why they have to be better than a New Orleans cop?

It ain't because an errant bullet is gonna cause the plane is gonna explode. It's because a handgun is a weak weapon, and the need to quickly stop an attacker is of huge importance (even though the distance may be less than 10 feet). And avoiding the killing and wounding of innocent bystanders is also of great importance.

The same urgency, and clear need to avoid killing innocent people, applies in a school shooting. (The aspect of having school carry laws rescinded as soon as somebody like you kills a classmate is merely one additional reason to require training).

If you peg your standards to match the LCD (lowest common denominator)requirements placed on the average cop recruit today, I hope you never carry any place where I or my family may be present.

Surely you have some understanding of the concept that cops receive far more training than is required for CCW. And surely you are aware of the fact that cops, on average, miss their intended target 80% of the time when shooting at bad guys.

So you, in your intellectual assessment, have decided that people with less training than cops should be empowered to protect our campuses. That's impressive, dude.

IIRC you have indicated that you have never taken, nor seen the need to take, a defensive pistol course. Perhaps if you expand your frame of reference, you'll have a better appreciation for the extent to which a handgun can (and cannot) be employed to stop a deranged aggressor. And perhaps you'll be better qualified to pass judgment on the training requirements for those who would be shooting in a crowded environment.

Sign up for some training, and then get back to us. Please.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

I'll pretend that you are serious..............so I'll try to provide what should be an intuitively obvious answer to an asinine question.

Ever hear of the Federal Air Marshall qualifications ?
Ever wonder why they have to be better than a New Orleans cop?

It ain't because an errant bullet is gonna cause the plane is gonna explode. It's because a handgun is a weak weapon, and the need to quickly stop an attacker is of huge importance (even though the distance may be less than 10 feet). And avoiding the killing and wounding of innocent bystanders is also of great importance.

The same urgency, and clear need to avoid killing innocent people, applies in a school shooting. (The aspect of having school carry laws rescinded as soon as somebody like you kills a classmate is merely one additional reason to require training).

If you peg your standards to match the LCD (lowest common denominator)requirements placed on the average cop recruit today, I hope you never carry any place where I or my family may be present.

Surely you have some understanding of the concept that cops receive far more training than is required for CCW. And surely you are aware of the fact that cops, on average, miss their intended target 80% of the time when shooting at bad guys.

So you, in your intellectual assessment, have decided that people with less training than cops should be empowered to protect our campuses. That's impressive, dude.

IIRC you have indicated that you have never taken, nor seen the need to take, a defensive pistol course. Perhaps if you expand your frame of reference, you'll have a better appreciation for the extent to which a handgun can (and cannot) be employed to stop a deranged aggressor. And perhaps you'll be better qualified to pass judgment on the training requirements for those who would be shooting in a crowded environment.

Sign up for some training, and then get back to us. Please.

i agree with your logic, but when is killing innocents not "of great importance?"

Everyone that carries a handgun needs training, except those of us who were born with the bestowed knowledge of weapon mastery....

The NINJA class....

 

[dawg23]

Dawg - who are you hiring to write for you these days? No way a mississippi education generated that ^^^

I hired a Ninja.

 

[jgwalt1]

Are there any instances of CHP holders negligent shooting bystanders? (honest question, not trying to be a smart@$$ )

I personally follow the rule, be sure of your target and whats beyond it. If there is a crowd of people behind the BG I couldn't take the shot.

 

[dawg23]

i agree with your logic, but when is killing innocents not "of great importance?"

Perhaps I should have said "of even greater importance."

I believe that, given the situation with our soon-to-be president and our Democrat-controlled Congress, the gun-grabbers are just waiting for any sensational gun related murder. This could be a "Columbine" type of event, a rampage in a hospital, or who knows what.

But a school shooting would make a great catalyst for more restrictive gun laws in this country. School shootings were part of the proximate impetus in England when they essentially passed a total ban on forearms.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

Perhaps I should have said "of even greater importance."

I believe that, given the situation with our soon-to-be president and our Democrat-controlled Congress, the gun-grabbers are just waiting for any sensational gun related murder. This could be a "Columbine" type of event, a rampage in a hospital, or who knows what.

But a school shooting would make a great catalyst for more restrictive gun laws in this country. School shootings were part of the proximate impetus in England when they essentially passed a total ban on forearms.

With you all the way.

I just find that some people view the right to carry as an absolute right. It is in a way, but who can justly argue with training or competency being shown before a permit. The current permit system sucks, but I think a permit system that justly showd competency is necessary. Not as a who gets and who does not, but a way to determine training.

There are a lot of cops that I hope never come to back me up in a shooting because i am scared I will get shot first. Shooting is a skill that almost any instructor can teach to a blind monkey, but there are those who simply cannot grasp the skill snecessary for safe gun handling and responsible shooting. I am not even talking about accuracy. Those people should not be allowed to carry.

My freedom to not get shot by a knucklehead trumps their right to carry a weapon they cannot even safely use.

i wish the same for driving. I think you should have to pass a "real" test to get a license or even buy a car. Soem of these people are more deadly with a car than they could ever be with a gun.


i am hoping we have some "criminal" who carries anyway and saves the day. I know he will pay the price, but what a mayrter for the cause.

SOme people abide by the addage, better to be caught with it than without it., I know that is what they say in the Lower ninth ward.

 

[jgwalt1]

"My freedom to not get shot by a knucklehead trumps their right to carry a weapon they cannot even safely use."

Devil's advocate....You chose to be at the same location as said knucklehead, therefor putting yourself in theoretical danger. A parallel could be the gov banning smoking in resaraunts because of secondhand smoke. The the nonsmoking patron choses to eat at a restaraunt that allows smoking, that's his choice, making him responsible for his choice.

 

[sylvest]

With you all the way.

I just find that some people view the right to carry as an absolute right. It is in a way, but who can justly argue with training or competency being shown before a permit. The current permit system sucks, but I think a permit system that justly showd competency is necessary. Not as a who gets and who does not, but a way to determine training.

There are a lot of cops that I hope never come to back me up in a shooting because i am scared I will get shot first. Shooting is a skill that almost any instructor can teach to a blind monkey, but there are those who simply cannot grasp the skill snecessary for safe gun handling and responsible shooting. I am not even talking about accuracy. Those people should not be allowed to carry.

My freedom to not get shot by a knucklehead trumps their right to carry a weapon they cannot even safely use.
i wish the same for driving. I think you should have to pass a "real" test to get a license or even buy a car. Soem of these people are more deadly with a car than they could ever be with a gun.


i am hoping we have some "criminal" who carries anyway and saves the day. I know he will pay the price, but what a mayrter for the cause.

SOme people abide by the addage, better to be caught with it than without it., I know that is what they say in the Lower ninth ward.

you sound like a liberal. your right to not get shot doesnt trump anyones 2A rights. it is an absolute right.

driving a car and carrying a gun should NEVER be compared. a car is a privilige. carrying a gun is a gauranteed constitutional right.

 

[dawg23]

you sound like a liberal. your right to not get shot doesnt trump anyones 2A rights. it is an absolute right.

To quote LSP ............ sigh.

I'll leave it to someone else to explain to this guy, again, how and why his second amendment rights are not absolute ........ and haven't been since the day he was born.

 

[sylvest]

well since you wrote the constitution why dont you tell me yourself.