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

[QUOTE=joost1120;50946519]It's not about the robber. Just google the 21 foot rule. Someone holding a knife can stab you before you've unholstered your gun. It's not worth risking your life over. If he's got a gun, don't even bother reaching for it. Even if he wasn't planning on using it, once he sees his life being threatened, he won't hesitate. That's why I don't think CCW helps that much. It might help when groups are being threatened or attacked, but individually? No thanks, I'd rather just give him my wallet.[/QUOTE] There's plenty of evidence that firearms are used in self-defense without resulting in the death of either party. I mean, the fact alone that you have between 88,000 and 3 million defensive gun uses (depending on the source) as reported by the person who obviously survived using a gun to protect themselves should make it clear enough. And as I recommended to another poster, I suggest you go to reddit's r/DGU subreddit and explore some of the posts there involving muggings. Spoiler: When a criminal is demanding you get an object (your wallet) out of your pocket and hand it over, it's not hard to get a gun before he realizes what you've done, and the overwhelming majority of muggers will not suddenly lunge into a stabbing frenzy when their easy mark turns out to be armed after all. You can say 'I don't think a CCW helps that much' but your uninformed opinion is pretty worthless in the face of ample examples and statistical evidence. If you'd rather give a mugger your wallet, that's your call and I totally respect that because it's your decision. But don't then try to claim that anyone who feels otherwise is going to get stabbed to death, because the evidence clearly shows that that generally isn't the case.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50947441]How often are people robbed by Krav Maga specialists? What the fuck kind of bullshit fantasy scenario is this? Are Israeli commandos getting desperate for funding or something? If bare hands are so dangerous, why aren't we regulating those instead of guns? Honestly it really worries me that anyone can go out and become a high capacity assault specialist without a license.[/QUOTE] What he's saying is a little bit of rhetoric that you've decided to take seriously. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill]The 21 foot rule thing definitely exists.[/url] If someone is close to you with a knife or something, and they intend to harm you, you will not be able to unholster your gun and stop them unless you saw them coming beyond 21 feet. If the aggressor sneaks up on you or hides his knife until he gets close, you will not be able to unholster your gun without him managing to attack you. This is why he is talking about Krav Maga, there is no preparation time for being able to use a martial art.

[QUOTE=Samiam22;50947760]What he's saying is a little bit of rhetoric that you've decided to take seriously. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill"]The 21 foot rule thing definitely exists.[/URL] If someone is close to you with a knife or something, and they intend to harm you, you will not be able to unholster your gun and stop them unless you saw them coming beyond 21 feet. If the aggressor sneaks up on you or hides his knife until he gets close, you will not be able to unholster your gun without him managing to attack you. This is why he is talking about Krav Maga, there is no preparation time for being able to use a martial art.[/QUOTE] It's just not really relevant in situations involving a CCW holder. That 21 foot rule mostly applies when people with a holstered weapon are approaching a questionable person who may attack (like a police officer).

I'm not a fan of any form of weapon carry, but if it were to exist I absolutely refuse to support open carry. Concealed carry is kinda OK in my book but I'd prefer them to be out of campuses but that's just me (namely just against them being used in places with armed forces already there, for example on-campus police)

[QUOTE=RB33;50947577]If everyone isn't carrying a gun, everyone is safer. No one is able to shoot you then. Except criminals of course but they won't shoot random innocent people without a reason.[/QUOTE] You do know people dont randomly shoot other people because they have a gun, right? Theres like, enough guns for like one or two per person or something like that in this country and we're not in a constant state of death and annihilation. Also i'd disagree on that last part since thats been... Uh... Happening.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50946343]It's not just a European mindset -it's most likely one that'll become common in America given enough time. Much of the USA was created in the past two centuries, and there were large areas of land unsettled even a century ago. Given enough time the American peoples will continue settling down, abandoning this "frontier" mentality, and creating a less-wild form of society. It's already under process in America, but It'll take a few centuries for Americans to have built up the kind of society common over in Europe. Until then you are going to get a lot of people holding onto the romantic ideal of guns preserving American society from tyranny and protecting you from criminals rather than the unwelcome reality that a lot of businesses and politicians have made careers out of exploiting the fear of gun owners and turning them into an effective political machine so that they could lobby for favourable gun legislation that benefits few. It's resulted in the creation of a lot of angry militia and sovereign citizen types who hoard guns when a black man is elected president.[/QUOTE] political party and skin color are two very different things, you racist.

[QUOTE=RB33;50947577]Except criminals of course but they won't shoot random innocent people without a reason.[/QUOTE] So... all those terrorist attacks in Europe in the past year didn't happen or something? The shootings, the knifings, the bombs. Nope, the events didn't happen because criminals don't shoot random people based on some arbitrary moral code that they all follow in spite of being criminals who don't follow the collective morals of society to begin with. What in the actual fuck kind of drugs are you on?

[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;50941489]A dildo won't help you protect yourself from a mass shooter.[/QUOTE] Odds are a gun won't either.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;50948258]You do know people dont randomly shoot other people because they have a gun, right? Theres like, enough guns for like one or two per person or something like that in this country and we're not in a constant state of death and annihilation. Also i'd disagree on that last part since thats been... Uh... Happening.[/QUOTE] For the last part, assuming that they are at least sane criminals. The problem is that they can and if 2 armed people fight it might end up a gunfight. I don't want to risk that. If there is no benefit of having people armed in public, then they shouldn't be.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;50946871]Isnt that an argument a lot of pro-gun people have is that it makes you FEEL safer but doesnt necessarily MAKE you safer? :v:[/QUOTE] having the gun is one thing. do i feel safer knowing there's a remington under the bed? not really, it's more out of the way and a last resort above all else. knowing how to properly use and take care of the weapon, and have procedures set up in the event shit happens is what makes me feel safe.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50948487]So... all those terrorist attacks in Europe in the past year didn't happen or something? The shootings, the knifings, the bombs. Nope, the events didn't happen because criminals don't shoot random people based on some arbitrary moral code that they all follow in spite of being criminals who don't follow the collective morals of society to begin with. What in the actual fuck kind of drugs are you on?[/QUOTE] I count terrorists as separate. They don't compare to your average non-ideological motivated theif or robber.

[QUOTE=Pops;50948518]having the gun is one thing. do i feel safer knowing there's a remington under the bed? not really, it's more out of the way and a last resort above all else. knowing how to properly use and take care of the weapon, and have procedures set up in the event shit happens is what makes me feel safe.[/QUOTE] No i meant that not having guns makes people feel safe but doesnt necessarily make them safe. [editline]25th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=RB33;50948511]For the last part, assuming that they are at least sane criminals.[/QUOTE] I'd, uh, rather no trust the men committing crimes, thank you. [QUOTE=RB33;50948511]The problem is that they can and if 2 armed people fight it might end up a gunfight. I don't want to risk that.[/QUOTE] Firstly, in a lot of cases simply having the firearm is enough to deter the crime, secondly, people always say "oh it'll just end up in a huge gunfight." but ive never seen anyone actually give an example of a guy with a gun doing a crime, then another guy with a gun comes out to fuck him up for trying to hurt people, ending up in a big gunfight and injuring/killing more than if he hadnt. [QUOTE=RB33;50948511]If there is no benefit of having people armed in public, then they shouldn't be.[/QUOTE] Defending ones life sounds like a big benefit.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;50948801]No i meant that not having guns makes people feel safe but doesnt necessarily make them safe.[/QUOTE] oh, i misread your post. then again i'm not every pro-gun person, so i don't exactly fall in with the common crowd on these sort of things.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;50948801]I'd, uh, rather no trust the men committing crimes, thank you. [/QUOTE] Your sane average criminal don't shoot people at random. So you don't need to worry about them. [QUOTE]Firstly, in a lot of cases simply having the firearm is enough to deter the crime, secondly, people always say "oh it'll just end up in a huge gunfight." but ive never seen anyone actually give an example of a guy with a gun doing a crime, then another guy with a gun comes out to fuck him up for trying to hurt people, ending up in a big gunfight and injuring/killing more than if he hadnt.[/QUOTE] It can happen which means one more dead that it otherwise would be. Arming most people is not a reasonable alternative to that. [QUOTE]Defending ones life sounds like a big benefit.[/QUOTE] You don't have capable police where you live?

[QUOTE=RB33;50948986]Your sane average criminal don't shoot people at random. So you don't need to worry about them.[/QUOTE] Theres literally no way for you to know that, and if they panic they can and sometimes do still shoot and kill people. Thats reckless and dangerous. [QUOTE=RB33;50948986]It can happen which means one more dead that it otherwise would be. Arming most people is not a reasonable alternative to that.[/QUOTE] I didnt ask you to tell me it could happen, i asked you to give me an example of it happening. [QUOTE=RB33;50948986]You don't have capable police where you live?[/QUOTE] Someone breaks into your house with a gun, they're an immediate threat, the Police, even the fastest, cant get there before they could potentially kill you. Also, the US is way less claustraphobic and more rural i'd say than the EU, in some areas of the country you can go miles before getting to a neighbors house. I forget what the average is but its like, what, 10 minutes from the call that the Police get to your house on average or something? Thats a lot of time.

Anti-gun arguments frequently decry CCWs as useless and cite the 21 foot rule. How about the 10 minute rule? That's the average police response time in the United States. In rural areas, [I]there may not even be local police[/I].

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50949026]Anti-gun arguments frequently decry CCWs as useless and cite the 21 foot rule. How about the 10 minute rule? That's the average police response time in the United States. In rural areas, [I]there may not even be local police[/I].[/QUOTE] I think a lot of them forget just how big the United States is and how much more spread out it is.

[QUOTE=RB33;50948986]Your sane average criminal don't shoot people at random. So you don't need to worry about them. It can happen which means one more dead that it otherwise would be.[/QUOTE] I feel like there's a contradiction here

I'm a student at UT Austin, and I am pretty neutral on this whole thing. I think allowing concealed carry on campus is preventing a problem that doesn't really exist, because the odds of getting killed on a university campus are exceptionally low. However, allowing concealed carry weapons on campus probably does reduce the risk of dying by a dangerous criminal. Hopefully the carriers are responsible enough that no gun accidents ever happen on campus. I think, given the number of guns in the United States, and the cultural love of guns, that allowing concealed carry on campus is a reasonable decision, and protects people. However, I am personally of the opinion that a gun-free society would be much safer for everyone. The problem is that the US is probably not going to become a gun-free society, so, when working within the bounds of society and culture as they currently are, this decision was probably not a bad one.

I don't think a gun free society can exist anywhere on the planet. Even the most anti-gun nations have some level of civilian gun ownership. And even if a nation fully purged all guns period, there'd be a massive and indescribably regrettable loss of historic items.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50949105]I don't think a gun free society can exist anywhere on the planet. Even the most anti-gun nations have some level of civilian gun ownership. And even if a nation fully purged all guns period, there'd be a massive and indescribably regrettable loss of historic items.[/QUOTE] When I say gun-free, I mean something along the lines of Germany, where ownership of shotguns and long guns is legal for hunting, but very difficult to be approved for, and ownership of handguns is almost entirely illegal. If you look up rates of gun violence and gun ownership in modern, western countries, you'll find a strong correlation between the two. It seems to me that if a country is thoroughly saturated with guns, some of those guns will inevitably find their way into the hands of criminals, and I think that in those countries, the damage criminals cause using guns outweighs the good that responsible gun owners do to prevent that damage. Gang violence using firearms is very prevalent in the United States, but not so much in countries with strong restrictions on gun ownership. I believe there is a reason for that. That being said though, I don't think that restriction of gun ownership in the US after the model of a country like Germany could ever really happen or work properly, and I don't think people would vote for that anyway.

The issue is gang violence in those countries still occurs (sometimes to a more extreme degree), they just use things other than guns when they can't get illegal guns. In Britain it's illegal knives, in Australia bikers use chains and bats (and some homemade guns, too). One thing I like to point out is that Australia's gun crime rate was on a downward trend until the country began cracking down on them, at which point it spiked and then returned to declining at the same rate it had been before the spike. Additionally, murder+attempted murder rates in general (it's important to consider them together) correlate more with education quality, poverty rates, and quality mental health care than with firearms ownership. There are states with very high rates of civilian gun ownership with very low crime rates, and states that have all but banned guns yet have insanely high crime rates. You also have the fact that Americans tend to buy guns when they feel threatened, which can come as a result of an increased crime rate, creating a kind of correlation between the two that doesn't necessarily mean that gun ownership causes crime.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;50949019]Theres literally no way for you to know that, and if they panic they can and sometimes do still shoot and kill people.[/QUOTE] I would have heard about it in the news if it was a regular thing to be happening. [QUOTE]Someone breaks into your house with a gun, they're an immediate threat, the Police, even the fastest, cant get there before they could potentially kill you. Also, the US is way less claustraphobic and more rural i'd say than the EU, in some areas of the country you can go miles before getting to a neighbors house. I forget what the average is but its like, what, 10 minutes from the call that the Police get to your house on average or something? Thats a lot of time.[/QUOTE] Someone breaking into a house is different from the topic, which is carrying guns in public. You should be able to trust the police and no one being armed. That's what I have to say about that. Carrying guns in public on the other hand is hard to justify in my belief. [editline]26th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Perrine;50949069]I feel like there's a contradiction here[/QUOTE] I was referring to 2 people ending up in a fight and both drawing their guns. Not gun violence without any reason at all behind it.

[QUOTE=RB33;50949164]I would have heard about it in the news if it was a regular thing to be happening.[/QUOTE] Do research next time, specifically "What are homicide rates". You know what "homicide" means dont you? [QUOTE=RB33;50949164]Someone breaking into a house is different from the topic, which is carrying guns in public. You should be able to trust the police and no one being armed. That's what I have to say about that. Carrying guns in public on the other hand is hard to justify in my belief.[/QUOTE] That literally changes nothing except you're outside instead of in your home, the police are still going to get there in roughly 10 minutes time. You also still havent given me an example of that thing happening.

[QUOTE=Samiam22;50947760][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill]The 21 foot rule thing definitely exists.[/url][/QUOTE] The 21-foot rule exists when someone is actively, deliberately trying to stab you to death, not when they've just demanded your wallet and- surprise!- you have a gun. If you provoke a fight against someone with knife in hand to the point of murderous rage and they are within 21 feet of you, you will probably not be able to draw and fire before they reach you. That says nothing about when you are confronting someone who is not already in the process of applying lethal force. Don't misapply the 21-foot rule. It's procedural guidance for dealing with potentially armed suspects, not an instant death bubble.

The 21 foot rule also makes some assumptions about conditions that can certainly vary depending on context. It doesn't apply to every situation at all. For example, my draw is about twice as fast as the average it uses, which itself is almost fast enough.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50949158]The issue is gang violence in those countries still occurs (sometimes to a more extreme degree), they just use things other than guns. In Britain it's illegal knives, in Australia bikers use chains and bats (and some homemade guns, too). Additionally, murder+attempted murder rates in general (it's important to consider them together) correlate more with education quality, poverty rates, and quality mental health care than with firearms ownership. There are states with very high rates of civilian gun ownership with very low crime rates, and states that have all but banned guns yet have insanely high crime rates.[/QUOTE] Statistically, though, less deaths result from gang violence per capita in those countries than in the United States, and I think a reason for that is that bats and knives simply aren't as effective at killing as an object that is designed specifically to do that. Also, I think that comparisons between different states within the same country are difficult, because a dedicated individual (like a criminal) could acquire a firearm in (or at least bring one to) any place in the United States with relative ease. True, though, that there are strong correlations as well between education quality, poverty rates, and quality mental health care and violent crime, and I am definitely of the opinion that there are more pressing issues to deal with all across the US than gun ownership. And, as I said before, I'm not even particularly against gun ownership in the US, considering how fully saturated guns already are in our society. I'm just saying that my opinion is that gun laws like in Germany would be ideal, although probably not possible in our country.

[QUOTE=RB33;50949164]You should be able to trust the police and no one being armed.[/QUOTE] Well gee golly it's a crying shame that we live in a country where police responses are upwards of thirty minutes in major metropolitan centers, police have a frightening chance of killing you (the victim) if you are unfortunate enough to not be white, and courts have repeatedly upheld that police have [i]no obligation whatsoever[/i] to protect you. You could be getting stabbed to death by a home invader and if the police officers outside felt scared about entering your house, they would be legally protected if they just let you die. So you know what, sure, if you can fix that situation then maybe we can talk about the necessity of personal ownership of firearms. I mean, it won't actually fix the problem, since our income inequality, lack of education or gainful employment in urban centers, and school-to-prison pipeline drive massive amounts of urban crime, but maybe it will make it better. Until then, though, all this 'in an ideal world you shouldn't need guns' stuff is pie-in-the-sky nonsense that is utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

[QUOTE=catbarf;50949213]Well gee golly it's a crying shame that we live in a country where police responses are upwards of thirty minutes in major metropolitan centers, police have a frightening chance of killing you (the victim) if you are unfortunate enough to not be white[/QUOTE] Unrelated but uh... Dont whites specifically end up dead due to police way way more than any other ethnic group in the country? :v:

[QUOTE=AaronM202;50949179]Do research next time, specifically "What are homicide rates". You know what "homicide" means dont you?[/QUOTE] Homicides happens usually because of a reason or motive, right? I was talking about shootings without a real reason. Average criminals don't usually commit those. [QUOTE]That literally changes nothing except you're outside instead of in your home, the police are still going to get there in roughly 10 minutes time.[/QUOTE] A gun in your own home can be fine, carrying in out in the streets is another thing entirely. You don't have crowds in your house or people with their own guns. You would have both if people carried guns outside. Increasing the risk of innocents getting hurt and gun fights erupting. [QUOTE]You also still havent given me an example of that thing happening.[/QUOTE] If even more people are armed, it is going to happen. The lack of it happening now might be due to a relative low amount of gun carriers and responsible gun owners. If that changed, so would the risk.