Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,955
    Post Thanks / Like

    "Gun Free" Zones Make Good People Easy Targets

    SAFETY & SECURITY INFO
    The Umpqua Community College Campus is considered to be a safe and secure place for higher learning. We want everyone to be safe and secure. Please familiarize yourself with our safety and security information. It may help you or someone you know....

    Possession, use, or threatened use of firearms (including but not limited to BB guns, air guns, water pistols, and paint guns) ammunition, explosives, dangerous chemicals, or any other objects as weapons on college property, except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations, is prohibited...
    https://www.umpqua.edu/safety-security-information

    No one on this community college campus was allowed to have a gun - not even the security guard. But mass murderers don't follow such rules. "Gun Free" zones make good people easy targets, and give the shooter lots of time to kill more people before someone with a gun eventually shows up to stop them.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  2. Likes Squatch347, Lukecash12 liked this post
  3. #2
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Gun Free" Zones Make Good People Easy Targets

    I don't believe it.. there is no way anyone entered that zone with a gun. Certainly there is some sort of check point to ensure no guns enter... or is it some honor policy?
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  4. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  5. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Gun Free" Zones Make Good People Easy Targets

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul
    ...except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations...
    Meaning that licensed holders of Concealed Carry Permits are authorized by law to carry firearms on campus.

    This "gun free zones are dangerous" trope is getting pretty tiresome and has become a tone-deaf way to brush aside the alarming regularity of such tragedies.

  6. #4
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Gun Free" Zones Make Good People Easy Targets

    Quote Originally Posted by FREUND
    This "gun free zones are dangerous" trope is getting pretty tiresome and has become a tone-deaf way to brush aside the alarming regularity of such tragedies.
    Well, it isn't used to brush aside the alarming regularity, it is used to highlight the alarming regularity that gun free zones are targeted.
    Apparently at a place where security guards were not allowed to be armed.

    also, can you support that concealed carry permits authorize to carry in a "gun free" zone? I know that laws vary from state to state, but that is news to me. not that I have studied every law. I generally don't carry because the gun free zones are everywhere and make it difficult to travel through your normal day with a fire arm.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  7. #5
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Gun Free" Zones Make Good People Easy Targets

    Please see ORS 166.370, which details the restrictions surrounding the possession of a firearm in public buildings or court facilities and also exempts those who have a concealed hangun license:

    Quote Originally Posted by ORS 166.370
    (3)Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to: ... (d) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 (Issuance of concealed handgun license) and 166.292 (Procedure for issuing) to carry a concealed handgun.
    A public college such as Umpqua CC cannot by Oregon state law restrict holders of Concealed Carry Licenses or any other state-authorized entity from carrying (see ORS 166.170).

    Thus Umpqua CC was not a "gun-free zone" as there is no such thing as a "gun-free zone" in Oregon on public property unless otherwise authorized by the state Legislature.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    Well, it isn't used to brush aside the alarming regularity, it is used to highlight the alarming regularity that gun free zones are targeted.
    Apparently at a place where security guards were not allowed to be armed.
    Except it wasn't a gun-free zone, as demonstrated above.

  8. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  9. #6
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Gun Free" Zones Make Good People Easy Targets

    Quote Originally Posted by FREUND
    Except it wasn't a gun-free zone, as demonstrated above.
    Well, I have a question for you.
    Certainly you have demonstrated that gun free zones do not prohibit CCL card holders, but would you agree that the "effect" of the "gun free zone" is to dissuade legal carriers (even CCL's) from carrying there?

    What I mean, is that if you create a law and offer an exemption, but the law has the effect as though it doesn't have the exemption, isn't that a problem?.. and isn't that occurring here. I would be willing to bet that every sign that says "no guns allowed" doesn't have the phrase "except CCL's".

    -----To the effect---
    Clearly the effect of the Law is to keep law abiding citizens from carrying guns in those areas, and it also has the effect of creating "target" zones for those wishing to do lots of harm to defenseless people.

    --not a gun free zone---
    You are clearly appealing to the letter of the law, and not the title of the law(I assume), because it most certainly was a zone that fell under the "gun free" guidelines .. Yes?

    Also, Pro Gun people have been arguing that there is no such thing as a real gun free zone, because criminals by definition don't follow the law. So what effect is the law actually having, and do we really want that effect?
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  10. #7
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Gun Free" Zones Make Good People Easy Targets

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    Certainly you have demonstrated that gun free zones do not prohibit CCL card holders, but would you agree that the "effect" of the "gun free zone" is to dissuade legal carriers (even CCL's) from carrying there?
    What gun free zone are you talking about? Umpqua CC isn't a gun free zone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    What I mean, is that if you create a law and offer an exemption, but the law has the effect as though it doesn't have the exemption, isn't that a problem?.. and isn't that occurring here. I would be willing to bet that every sign that says "no guns allowed" doesn't have the phrase "except CCL's".
    Wouldn't the persons applying for and carrying a CCL understand the laws which describe where they can and cannot carry? Isn't that kinda the point of applying for and holding a CCL issued by the state or local authority?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    Clearly the effect of the Law is to keep law abiding citizens from carrying guns in those areas, and it also has the effect of creating "target" zones for those wishing to do lots of harm to defenseless people.
    This is certainly a possibility, that public places are "target zones" for those who want to harm a lot of people. Of course the law allows for authorized individuals to carry in these zones, so this undercuts your argument and the OP's. The Umpqua CC shooting was a demonstration that even in states which allow citizens to carry weapons in public places who have been authorized to do so, such tragedies still occur.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    You are clearly appealing to the letter of the law, and not the title of the law(I assume), because it most certainly was a zone that fell under the "gun free" guidelines .. Yes?
    If we are going to redefine "gun free" to include the exceptions outlined in Oregon law, then yes the public space was "gun free". This is a misleading definition, however. There are jurisdictions within the United States where a private business may post a sign prohibiting concealed carry and it be legally binding, federal buildings which are governed by federal law and thus supersede state law, and certain public spaces/venues/institutions which in some states are off limits. As such these zones are more befitting of the "gun free zone" descriptor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindtrap
    Also, Pro Gun people have been arguing that there is no such thing as a real gun free zone, because criminals by definition don't follow the law. So what effect is the law actually having, and do we really want that effect?
    ...and Umpqua CC was a counter-example which showed that even in a public space where citizens are permitted to carry firearms, such tragedies can still happen. If you are going to define a "gun free zone" as one that prohibits those who aren't authorized to own/carry/transport a gun to do so, then you have rendered the term meaningless. For example, say I purchase a gun and store it legally in my home and it does not leave my private property. According to your definition, my private property is a "gun free zone".

  11. #8
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Gun Free" Zones Make Good People Easy Targets

    Quote Originally Posted by FREUND
    What gun free zone are you talking about? Umpqua CC isn't a gun free zone.
    I don't understand your meaning.
    Your saying the "gun free" laws don't apply to Umpqua CC?
    or are you saying the effect of the gun free law is not a totally gun free area?

    Quote Originally Posted by FREUND
    Wouldn't the persons applying for and carrying a CCL understand the laws which describe where they can and cannot carry? Isn't that kinda the point of applying for and holding a CCL issued by the state or local authority?
    The point being to educate? I thought the point was so that you could carry a weapon concealed.

    Quote Originally Posted by FREUND
    This is certainly a possibility, that public places are "target zones" for those who want to harm a lot of people. Of course the law allows for authorized individuals to carry in these zones, so this undercuts your argument and the OP's. The Umpqua CC shooting was a demonstration that even in states which allow citizens to carry weapons in public places who have been authorized to do so, such tragedies still occur.
    Your correct that the idea of simply allowing people to carry in an area doesn't necessarily change the outcomes.
    However, the effect is what we should be concerned about. The difference in outcomes is not simply being allowed, but someone ACTUALLY carrying.

    So the argument is,
    That by limiting those who can carry, and revoking the first right of simply open carrying, the pressure to not carry at all is created.
    This pressure, even with the exemptions, is demonstrably effective at keeping law abiding citizens from possessing a fire arm in those law designations areas.

    The "gun free zone" effect is to suppress open carrying, and to attract criminals wishing to kill people with little resistance.

    Quote Originally Posted by FREUND
    If we are going to redefine "gun free" to include the exceptions outlined in Oregon law, then yes the public space was "gun free". This is a misleading definition, however. There are jurisdictions within the United States where a private business may post a sign prohibiting concealed carry and it be legally binding, federal buildings which are governed by federal law and thus supersede state law, and certain public spaces/venues/institutions which in some states are off limits. As such these zones are more befitting of the "gun free zone" descriptor.
    See this is where you are being unclear.
    There is the "gun free" designation of law.
    and there is the "gun free" designation of fact. An area with no guns is "gun free" but doesn't necessarily fall under law of the same name.


    As far as I am aware, both descriptions fit the school. It was free of physical guns except for the attacker.


    Quote Originally Posted by FREUND
    ...and Umpqua CC was a counter-example which showed that even in a public space where citizens are permitted to carry firearms, such tragedies can still happen. If you are going to define a "gun free zone" as one that prohibits those who aren't authorized to own/carry/transport a gun to do so, then you have rendered the term meaningless. For example, say I purchase a gun and store it legally in my home and it does not leave my private property. According to your definition, my private property is a "gun free zone".
    I think you are confusing the issue.


    So, what is your argument exactly. That areas where people are allowed to carry (even under restricted circumstances however stringent)
    some how weaken the case that lawful citizens who are ACTUALLY armed in an area are the best answer to these kinds of attacks?



    or,
    Are you trying to argue that the legal term "gun free" when applied to an area doesn't have the actual effect of suppressing citizens expression of that right.


    The argument against the so called "gun free zones" is that they are counter productive. They suppress lawful citizens from carrying, and attract violent attackers.
    This applies to even the private declarations of "no guns allowed in my store".

    I do not see how you have weakened, or undercut that argument.


    Honestly, my personal solution to this, or rather a suggestion I have made in the past (though not on this board perhaps) is that we require military personnel (even retired), to bring home and maintain their fire arms, along with the life time license to carry anywhere regardless other local or federal laws, or even private designations.
    In this instance, the ex military guy who charged the gunmen.. may have been armed instead.

    IMO if we want to put guns in the hands of highly trained citizens, we should look first at the military. The same men and women who have million dollar equipment and sometimes nuclear weapons at their finger tips.. have got to be assumed competent in all situations possible to a common citizen until shown otherwise.

    I am for requiring ex military to posses a fire arm at all times even after release.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  12. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  13. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,955
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Gun Free" Zones Make Good People Easy Targets

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I am for requiring ex military to posses a fire arm at all times even after release.
    I like and admire all of your argumentation, except for the above position.

    Freedom of speech includes the right to stay silent. Freedom of association includes a right to not associate. The right to contract includes the right to not enter into a contract (except ObamaCare, because, well that's a tax, you see.) Freedom of religion includes the right to ...you get the idea. So the right to bear arms must necessarily include the right to not bear arms.

    I think we have the federal government running enough of our lives without them requiring all former military to carry a weapon. And the last thing I want is for all retired military men and women to one day be forced into Obama's "Civilian National Security Force": http://www.americanthinker.com/video...ity_force.html Requiring them to carry for life would be a big step in that direction.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  14. #10
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: "Gun Free" Zones Make Good People Easy Targets

    Quote Originally Posted by EVEN
    I like and admire all of your argumentation, except for the above position.

    Freedom of speech includes the right to stay silent. Freedom of association includes a right to not associate. The right to contract includes the right to not enter into a contract (except ObamaCare, because, well that's a tax, you see.) Freedom of religion includes the right to ...you get the idea. So the right to bear arms must necessarily include the right to not bear arms.
    I certainly understand your concern, however if it is simply part of joining the military ... then it certainly wouldn't violate your objections (except for the obama army thing).

    I am not certain about the total nature of joining the military as far as the contract goes, but i don't think it's effects end just because one retires. For example the gov is still obligated to provide some healthcare (or at least pretend too).


    Now to be fair, this is a kind of extreme measure, but I would love to see it go into effect for a year.. and study it's effect on violent crime.
    Probably no more movie theater mass shootings, and certainly no more mass murders on military personnel.

    It also wouldn't be a move towards a military state, because they are not active duty, and would be acting on their own accord. They of course have not order to use their weapon.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Do "safe targets" need protection?
    By thegreenape in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 17th, 2009, 07:02 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •