Should concealed weapons be allowed on campus? (government, support, gun owner)

[oz in SC]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

Gun owners seem traditionally to resist regulations that are consistent with responsible ownership of a dangerous weapon. They seem to believe that the right to self-defense trumps all other rights. They are also handicapped by the traditional designs for trigger and firing mechanisms built into most firearms; those mechanisms preclude a reasonable means of disarming the firearm when not in use, such as providing a removable trigger assembly or firing pin assembly that could be stored and secured separately from the firearm, and which when removed makes the firearm unusable even if stolen or obtained without authorization. They also seem to believe that complete freedom of storage and instantaneous availability of their firearms trumps their responsibilities to take minimum steps (as prescribed by law) to secure the firearms from criminals who might enter their homes. They also don't accept the concept of "chain of custody" as applied to the possession of firearms from manufacturer, to dealer, to owner, whereby the responsibility for proper security and licensing of each firearm is well defined. (Our society has defined regulations supporting a traceable chain of custody for other kinds of sensitive objects, but not for firearms!)

I do not seek the elimination of private ownership of firearms. <sniff> <sniff>

Ummm,isn't having your possessions inside your home secure enough?

Most people lock their doors too,seems criminal break in( a crime in case you didn't know) and then steal(another crime) the firearm.

A logical person might consider the criminal to blame,however criminals cannot pay out in a lawsuit and some people simply relish a big payday...

[ParkTwain]

Originally Posted by oz in SC

Ummm,isn't having your possessions inside your home secure enough?

Hey, it's not my or you call, is it? Let's watch what the courts have to say. There should be a few new cases coming to court before long that might build legal precedent one way or another, given the recent news events.

[oz in SC]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

My goodness, what a cop out. I would think that a reasonable gun owner would accept the notion that it is his/her responsibility to take all reasonable steps to secure his own firearms, each of which in most cases is a dangerous weapon with the capacity of killing a dozen innocent bystanders in just a few seconds, from being stolen from his residence. To do less could certainly be deemed reckless and/or negligent behavior in a civil court (where guns are not permitted).

Rights come with responsibilities. Isn't that the conservative way?

Are car owners responsible if their car is stolen?

Are prescription drug users responsible if their prescription is stolen?

I believe there are armed security guards in courtrooms,odd considering guns aren't permited...almost as if the courts grasp that criminals do not obey laws....

[oz in SC]

Originally Posted by bily4

Good points made.

Not really,kind of typical of modern members of society looking for a payout.

In my opinion.

[ParkTwain]

Originally Posted by oz in SC

Are car owners responsible if their car is stolen?

Are prescription drug users responsible if their prescription is stolen?

You yet again missed the KEY POINT: those stolen objects are not specifically designed to be W-E-A-P-O-N-S.

With rights come responsibilities. I like that!

[oz in SC]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

Hey, it's not my or you call, is it? Let's watch what the courts have to say. There should be a few new cases coming to court before long that might build legal precedent one way or another, given the recent news events.

So far there is no legal precedent,unless the vultures looking for some quick money win out.

I always wonder what is so difficult about making the criminal responsible for the crime but you have shown it has nothing to do with crime, punishment, right or wrong,it is about getting a payout through suing someone.

[ParkTwain]

You seem to support recklessness with regard to the possession of weapons. That certainly is not allowed in the U.S. military.

[oz in SC]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

You yet again missed the KEY POINT: those stolen objects are not specifically designed to be W-E-A-P-O-N-S.

What bearing does that have?

If the object can and does kill you should be demanding the same of those items as you do firearms.

IF your problem is the needless deaths.

IF you are simply a hoplophobic then nevermind.

[oz in SC]

Originally Posted by ParkTwain

You seem to support recklessness with regard to the possession of weapons. That certainly is not allowed in the U.S. military.

That is because the weapons in question are the property of someone else,namely the people of the USA.

You seem to be very much in favor of an overbearing government...

[oz in SC]

140,000 deaths a year due to the misues of prescription drugs...

Someone should sue whoever has the most insurance.