Dildos descend on UT Austin in 'Cocks Not Glocks' protest of guns on campus - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50941720]it's still a rather clumsy and broken analogy.[/QUOTE] okay you guys are probably right. a constant expression of mine with anti-gun people is that their logic becomes flawed if you replace guns in the home with fire extinguishers in the home. "why do you need a gun in the home if you have the police?" "why do you need a fire extinguisher if you have firefighters?"

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50941501]Ultimately anyone who can legally carry a concealed firearm in Texas has proven that they can handle the weapon safely and responsibly.[/QUOTE] That's debatable.

[QUOTE=Talvy;50941765]That's debatable.[/QUOTE] So, debate it.

Watch as sexual harassment incident reports at the University increase.

[QUOTE=meppers;50941739]a constant expression of mine with anti-gun people is that their logic becomes flawed if you replace guns in the home with fire extinguishers in the home. "why do you need a gun in the home if you have the police?" "why do you need a fire extinguisher if you have firefighters?"[/QUOTE] The difference, of course, is that fires are not started by people using fire extinguishers. Your analogy would work better if flamethrowers and fire extinguishers were mechanically identical, differing only in who was using them. Anyways, my point seems to have been misinterpreted: banning dildos is the thing that's dumb. Allowing concealed carry is IMO wrong but I won't call it fundamentally stupid, just a sub-optimal decision.

[QUOTE=meppers;50941739]okay you guys are probably right. a constant expression of mine with anti-gun people is that their logic becomes flawed if you replace guns in the home with fire extinguishers in the home. "why do you need a gun in the home if you have the police?" "why do you need a fire extinguisher if you have firefighters?"[/QUOTE] you can't really make 1:1 comparisons with everything. you're comparing apples and oranges with that logic and in some cases it ends up looking really stupid yes a gun and a fire extinguisher can be both preventative measures in a house. but it is sometimes the case that it's wiser to get out of the house then to try tackling the fire yourself. i have nothing against a gun in the house as long as its unloaded and kept in a locked drawer or gun cabinet. just because somebody supports gun law reform doesn't mean you can't have a gun in your house

[QUOTE=Talvy;50941765]That's debatable.[/QUOTE] It really isn't. Getting a concealed carry license in the state of Texas involves a safety/handling test, both written and practical, a written theory test and a marksmanship test. It's a six hour course, during which time your instructor is watching everything you do. If your marksmanship is found unsatisfactory or you cannot handle a gun safely you do not get the license. If your instructor allows you to cut corners, well, that's a different issue. Technically then the CHL holder has not really met the requirements and could be argued to be carrying their weapon illegally. If this matter came up in court, an instructor cutting corners would be in very hot water and your CHL would be rescinded. There is a reason Texas has an extremely low incident rate among CHL holders. Our courses are plenty to weed out the idiots.

I can testify that there are in fact penises everywhere today Walking around campus I saw a very serious looking reporter with a dildo haphazardly taped to a glock, so that was pretty funny

I have a feeling that people don't realize that getting a concealed permit isn't as simple as asking for one. You have to demonstrate proficiency with the firearm at a range at various distances as well as take courses and tests to get certified. Looking up a Texas course, these were the shooting qualifications for their class. [quote]From a distance of 3 Yards: ◾1 shot in 2 seconds (5 times) ◾2 shots in 3 seconds (5 times) ◾5 shots in 10 seconds (1 time) From a distance of 7 Yards: ◾5 shots in 10 seconds (1 time) ◾2 shots in 4 seconds (1 time) ◾3 shots in 6 seconds (1 time) ◾1 shot in 3 seconds (5 times) ◾5 shots in 15 seconds (1 time) From a distance of 15 Yards: ◾2 shots in 6 seconds (1 time) ◾3 shots in 9 seconds (1 time) ◾5 shots in 15 seconds (1 time) [/quote] There's a VERY big difference between owning a gun and being able to walk around with it legally.

the worst part about this is that one of the best econ professors at the university retired because of the new law. sucks for econ majors.

Let's protest people who responsibly conceal carry guns on campus with the majority intention to protect themselves and others from criminals who don't give a fuck about the law. Truly not like UT Austin has ever experienced a mass shooter. :downs:

[QUOTE=TheTalon;50941493]That's a hard no. Sorry. As if a school full of strapped people wouldn't be a big enough deterrent, they have the means to stop a shooter with the only thing that stops a shooter. Being unarmed, hiding under a cafeteria table and saying please when the shooter sees you doesn't really work in your favor[/QUOTE] thats not how college shooting work though. colleges arent normally one closed up building and its not like theyre being shot up right now as it is [editline]24th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Cliff2;50941843]I have a feeling that people don't realize that getting a concealed permit isn't as simple as asking for one. You have to demonstrate proficiency with the firearm at a range at various distances as well as take courses and tests to get certified. Looking up a Texas course, these were the shooting qualifications for their class. There's a VERY big difference between owning a gun and being able to walk around with it legally.[/QUOTE] thank goodness everybody has demonstrated the ability to have a hair trigger when they pull their gun.

[QUOTE=Sableye;50941953]thats not how college shooting work though. colleges arent normally one closed up building and its not like theyre being shot up right now as it is[/quote] To recycle the fire extinguisher argument, you don't decide not to get fire extinguishers just because your building isn't currently on fire. You keep it around so you can respond if a fire crops up without necessarily needing to run away and let the fire destroy whatever it destroys. [quote]thank goodness everybody has demonstrated the ability to have a hair trigger when they pull their gun.[/QUOTE] This might be the first time I've actually heard an anti-gun argument [I]complaining[/I] about gun owners being required to demonstrate that they aren't retarded fuck-ups when handling a firearm. Congratulations.

if you're going to post gun-free zone signs around you better be upping the security to ensure those signs stay true instead of relying on the good will of people who would be looking to bring a gun onto campus for nefarious purposes. [editline]24th August 2016[/editline] otherwise the signs just give people a false sense of security.

Legal or not, no one is going to know who is CCing because it is concealed and they're in fact law abiding citizens so the gun will never come out of that holster unless there is danger.

[QUOTE=mugofdoom;50941480]Why not cocks and glocks?[/QUOTE] Pink Pistols already exists

[QUOTE=RB33;50941546]Personally, the having concealed weapons in schools is just too bizarre for me to believe. Here it's illegal to carry knives in public. In the US, guns in school is fine.[/QUOTE] America is saturated with guns. Policy needs to be made with that being understood. Restricting guns makes those locations targets, and adds numerous complications for otherwise law abiding citizens. You're talking about a country where some highschools have public gun racks because people go hunting after school at some point in the year. What actual harm comes about from allowing owners to carry guns in the context of a nation where they are already plentiful, and it will do nothing to stop unlawful carry. As for knives; being barred from carrying a knife just seems outright fucking insane to me. It's a tool. I'll open clamshell packaging, food, and I slice open my mail with mine every day. It's useful for tons of little things. Being paranoid about them being used as weapons just seems absurd to me. This is far more deadly than a short knife, and nobody would bat an eye at you carrying one around. [img]https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41MgixpOFDL._SX300_.jpg[/img] It's not like it takes any skill to use a club. Hell, it's even got a pommel, so it won't randomly slip out of your hand while you are swinging away. One heavy swing at someones head and they have a very good shot at being seriously injured, or killed. Even if they dodge, you can still shatter their collar bone, or if they block, you can crush their forearm. It takes nothing more than upper body strength. Someone who has training is going to know how to jab and thrust as well, and it's got better reach than a 6 inch knife. Legally, swinging at someone with a big maglight is considered assault with a deadly weapon in many jurisdictions in the US, even in some where going at someone with a knife isn't considered assault with a deadly weapon. Let that sink in. A damn flashlight is considered more dangerous than a small folding knife due to it's concussive power. Your complaining about American laws being strange, without considering the context of the country. OK fair enough. If you haven't lived here it might seem strange, but there's reasons for it. You should seriously take a step back and look at your own countries laws, because they are objectively nonsensical. Once you've reconciled that, many of our laws on the subject will not seem as bizarre.

[QUOTE=TheTalon;50941493]That's a hard no. Sorry. As if a school full of strapped people wouldn't be a big enough deterrent, they have the means to stop a shooter with the only thing that stops a shooter. Being unarmed, hiding under a cafeteria table and saying please when the shooter sees you doesn't really work in your favor[/QUOTE] Are guns a deterrent, though? I hear stories of police having doubts, [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/dallas-police-shooting-mayor-open-cary-laws-tougher-mike-rawlings-a7131381.html]such as the recent Dallas shooting[/url], that not only do people with guns not stop shootings (there were apparently 20 or 30 open carriers at Dallas that didn't do anything), they also make it harder for the police to determine who the actual shooter is when you have all these innocent civilians running around with guns.

[QUOTE=Samiam22;50942371]Are guns a deterrent, though? I hear stories of police having doubts, [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/dallas-police-shooting-mayor-open-cary-laws-tougher-mike-rawlings-a7131381.html]such as the recent Dallas shooting[/url], that not only do people with guns not stop shootings (there were apparently 20 or 30 open carriers at Dallas that didn't do anything), they also make it harder for the police to determine who the actual shooter is when you have all these innocent civilians running around with guns.[/QUOTE] Dallas was a bit of a different situation. Those open carriers (and probably countless concealed carriers) couldn't actually see the perp. I am about to re-play Mass Effect so I'm not going to dig up a bunch of articles but here's an example I posted a while back in SH: [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1520901[/url] A CHL holder put a stop to what would no doubt have been a high casualty event (even taking a bullet himself in the process). A shooter looking to spill as much blood as possible is going to be looking for a high concentration of victims that cannot fight back, so it's less likely that he'll target an armed campus, but if he should happen to do so he'll have a much lower chance of causing a lot of deaths.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50942413]Dallas was a bit of a different situation. Those open carriers (and probably countless concealed carriers) couldn't actually see the perp. I am about to re-play Mass Effect so I'm not going to dig up a bunch of articles but here's an example I posted a while back in SH: [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1520901[/url] A CHL holder put a stop to what would no doubt have been a high casualty event (even taking a bullet himself in the process). A shooter looking to spill as much blood as possible is going to be looking for a high concentration of victims that cannot fight back, so it's less likely that he'll target an armed campus, but if he should happen to do so he'll have a much lower chance of causing a lot of deaths.[/QUOTE] How is a shooter going to know if a campus is armed, though? The law being put into place means that people can carry guns on campus, but that doesn't mean that everyone who goes there will. Evidence that concealed carriers actually end mass shootings isn't terribly solid, either, [url=https://psmag.com/the-pernicious-myth-of-the-good-guy-with-a-gun-3f5b4f0b157a#.qd5w84j98] only 3% of shooters are actually stopped by another person with a gun[/url], and in those instances, more than half of them were security guards. What's more, in 13% of situations, the shooter is stopped by being restrained by an unarmed civilian.

[QUOTE=Samiam22;50942491]Evidence that concealed carriers actually end mass shootings isn't terribly solid, either, [url=https://psmag.com/the-pernicious-myth-of-the-good-guy-with-a-gun-3f5b4f0b157a#.qd5w84j98] only 3% of shooters are actually stopped by another person with a gun[/url], and in those instances, more than half of them were security guards. What's more, in 13% of situations, the shooter is stopped by being restrained by an unarmed civilian.[/QUOTE] The last half dozen times this got brought up people pointed out the relative percentages of CCW holders to the general population, combined with the fact that having a CCW permit doesn't automatically mean you carry 100% of the time. The 3% number is actually shockingly high considering the context.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50941501]Exactly what is obscene or vulgar about a concealed weapon...? The point of a concealed pistol is that it goes unnoticed and doesn't cause distractions. It's not like people are lugging around M60s and shotgunning beers while playing the national anthem on the kazoo. Ultimately anyone who can legally carry a concealed firearm in Texas has proven that they can handle the weapon safely and responsibly. At this point it's an anti-gun-rights protest, not an issue of safety or distraction.[/QUOTE] We have another thread in SH right now about people spouting anti black rehtoric in front of a NSSCP building in a black neighborhood in Houston open carrying guns. Which part of that is responsible?

[QUOTE=Fapplejack;50942524]We have another thread in SH right now about people spouting anti black rehtoric in front of a NSSCP building in a black neighborhood in Houston open carrying guns. Which part of that is responsible?[/QUOTE] You don't need a CHL to open carry a rifle or shotgun. Texas does not restrict the open carry of rifles or shotguns in public. I imagine you would be expelled for carrying a rifle or shotgun around at UT Austin unless you were part of a competition shooting team (which it may not have). I would urge you (and others) to please research this topic before trying to discuss it. Our gun laws are horrid. They often do not make sense. The majority of gun owners I know are pro-reform for gun laws, we just don't trust the government to do it responsibly and not try to fuck us over as it has repeatedly in the past.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50942516]The last half dozen times this got brought up people pointed out the relative percentages of CCW holders to the general population, combined with the fact that having a CCW permit doesn't automatically mean you carry 100% of the time. The 3% number is actually shockingly high considering the context.[/QUOTE] It's less than 3% if you read the stats I was talking about. From 2000 to 2013, 4 shootings were stopped by armed security guards (trained to carry guns and have them at all times) and 1 was stopped by a civilian who was carrying a gun. Security guards were considered as civilians and are part of the 3%.

[QUOTE=Samiam22;50942558]It's less than 3% if you read the stats I was talking about. From 2000 to 2013, 4 shootings were stopped by armed security guards (trained to carry guns and have them at all times) and 1 was stopped by a civilian who was carrying a gun. Security guards were considered as civilians and are part of the 3%.[/QUOTE] Firearms stats are very easily manipulated. Your stats are only considering "justifiable homicides" occurring during a "mass shooting" (the definition of which is twisted to fit the agenda of the one using it). They do not consider situations in which the shooter was incapacitated or surrendered to a citizen with a CCW. A lot of anti-gun sources twist statistics incredibly hard. Very conservative estimates put defensive gun uses at 80-90,000 cases per year in the US, and some estimates go into the millions (including the CDC's). It is difficult to get an exact number because reporting varies in specificity from state to state and even department to department.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50942601]Firearms stats are very easily manipulated. Your stats are only considering "justifiable homicides" occurring during a "mass shooting" (the definition of which is twisted to fit the agenda of the one using it). They do not consider situations in which the shooter was incapacitated or surrendered to a citizen with a CCW. A lot of anti-gun sources twist statistics incredibly hard. Very conservative estimates put defensive gun uses at 80-90,000 cases per year in the US, and some estimates go into the millions (including the CDC's).[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents/pdfs/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013"]I am using a report by the FBI[/URL]. [quote=FBI Report] In 5 incidents (3.1%), the shooting ended after armed individuals who were not law enforcement personnel exchanged gunfire with the shooters. In these incidents, 3 shooters were killed, 1 was wounded, and 1 committed suicide. The individuals involved in these shootings included a citizen with a valid firearms permit and armed security guards at a church, an airline counter, a federally managed museum, and a school board meeting.[/quote]

I really don't get why people think that prior carrying around guns is gonna help all that much

[QUOTE=Samiam22;50942616][url=http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents/pdfs/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013]I am using a report by the FBI[/url].[/QUOTE] That report looks at 160 incidents across 13 years (about 12 a year). Only 64 (40%) of those are actually "mass shootings" per the federal definition. These 160 incidents are far and away not the only criminal uses of firearms in that 13 year frame. Recurring themes in these incidents are shooters targeting those unaware - often in states or cities that have restricted firearms - and shootings targeting family members (in which the victim is considerably less likely to defend him or herself with lethal force). It is not an accurate look at general gun crime statistics because its scope is very narrow. However, even inside this scope, we can break the numbers down. Not very accurately, but bear with me. First, we can assume that the incidents which were stopped by a CHL holder must have occurred in a place where the CHL holder is permitted to carry a weapon defensively. This means that in these situations, the hero's ability to carry a weapon was the saving grace for one or more innocent bystanders. Second, we know that many of these incidents occur in locations where CHL holders are either not allowed to bring their weapons or where there is no process by which anyone can carry a pistol defensively. Third, although many of them occur in areas where one CAN carry a weapon defensively, we know that CHL holders remain a minority in any given population, meaning the odds of one actually being present for a given incident are fairly low. So whether a CHL holder is able to stop the shooting or not depends first and foremost on his or her presence to begin with. In most of these situations we can conclude that there were simply not CHL holders there due to their minority status and the proportion of target locations which ban guns. It is also important to note that, as the FBI's report states, 66% of these incidents ended before the police could respond. If only a few of those ended with a CHL holder's intervention (due to a CHL holder not being present) it is clear that relying on wishes, prayers and dumb luck isn't sufficient. Armed citizens [I]can[/I] deter shooters or stop them before they can take more lives, as long as they are present and sufficiently competent.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50942639]That report looks at 160 incidents across 13 years (about 12 a year). Only 64 (40%) of those are actually "mass shootings" per the federal definition. Recurring themes in these incidents are shooters targeting those unaware - often in states or cities that have restricted firearms - and shootings targeting family members (in which the victim is considerably less likely to defend him or herself with lethal force). It is not an accurate look at general gun crime statistics because its scope is very narrow.[/QUOTE] The report is on "active shooters" and it very clearly outlines what they define as an active shooter. The definition is also "mass killing" (3 or more have to be explicitly killed) rather than mass shooting. [url=http://massshootingtracker.org/]The number of "mass shootings" start getting a lot more generous if you include people who are shot but not killed[/url] [editline]25th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50942639]It is also important to note that, as the FBI's report states, 66% of these incidents ended before the police could respond. If only a few of those ended with a CHL holder's intervention (due to a CHL holder not being present) it is clear that relying on wishes, prayers and dumb luck isn't sufficient. Armed citizens [I]can[/I] deter shooters or stop them before they can take more lives, as long as they are present and sufficiently competent.[/QUOTE] That makes sense, but reality isn't really that generous. Out of the 5 stopped by armed civilians, 4 were security guards, leaving 1 guy who may or may not have been trained. This is where you're being optimistic with "sufficiently competent", because many, many gun owners in the US aren't.

[QUOTE=Samiam22;50942709]The report is on "active shooters" and it very clearly outlines what they define as an active shooter. The definition is also "mass killing" (3 or more have to be explicitly killed) rather than mass shooting. [url=http://massshootingtracker.org/]The number of "mass shootings" start getting a lot more generous if you include people who are shot but not killed[/url][/QUOTE] Limiting your scope to "mass killings" is a manipulation of statistics. A shooter is likely to take more lives if unimpeded (e.g. if a CHL holder or LEO is not there to stop them). This skews the numbers. If I did a study on fires in buildings, only considered buildings which were 80% or more destroyed by fire, and drew the conclusion from this data alone that fire sprinkler systems are ineffective (even though older buildings that don't have them are more likely to burn completely and will therefore be over-represented in a study which only considers fires with significant damage to the structures), I would be laughed off the stage. Considering only incidents in which CHL holders were not likely to be present, then concluding that CHL holders can't help during shootings, is stupid and it is a misuse of statistical data. The FBI's study isn't about determining the effectiveness of CHL holders. Here's an editorial which includes a list of some incidents where CHL holders stopped shooters: [url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/?utm_term=.2057188ea401[/url] It's a topic that's very heavily obscured by information manipulation and politics, but these things do happen. I think letting law-abiding citizens carry weapons defensively is fine. I also don't want to cite anecdotal evidence as a headlining argument, but I have personally used a firearm in a home defense situation. I didn't have to fire (for which I am very grateful), but I'm glad that I had it, because it was the sight of the gun that sent the intruder running. I don't really want to go back in time and find out what might've happened had I not come around the corner with a shotgun.