UCB Students get OK to Pack Heat in Class!

Status
Not open for further replies.

DJSTEVEZ

DJ Emeritus
Roger,
Cocaine & Ritalin are both central nervous system stimulants, that's pretty much where the similarity ends.

The main thing that made me say that is: You're wondering how I allowed myself to have a temper I couldn't control. It's just like someone who does not understand why a child labeled ADHD won't do his school work. Because he doesn't want to. You're a psych specialist and you don't know that? Only thing is this person's drive to do what he/she wants is stronger than the majority of people.
A school kid not wanting to his work and an adult who is aware they have a problem controlling their temper, especially if they have kids, is 2 very different things. The expectations for an adult are different than that of a child, so I don't get your meaning.
The natural way to deal with that is figuring out how to make him or her want it without pills. :) All of the college courses in the world mean squat if you fix the behavior with pills. It's like them teaching you for 4-8 yrs. how the human brain and stuff works, but then saying don't use what we've taught you. Prescribe this pill..
I don't recall advocating (here) that anyone should get on meds...again your point is lost on me, sorry.
.
.
.


Thank you for supporting my perspective on the duty to have a gun concept. We actually see eye to eye on a lot of stuff but for brainstorming sake I'll move on.
You said: "It's like the people who pay their taxes and the people who enjoy the same benefits of the taxpayer, but scam their way out of paying their fair share."
This one I'm trying to understand which context it applies to. The tax thing. The people who don't want to shoot someone is being protected by someone who will?
If that's the case, too far fetched. I don't think you would let the woman who wouldn't hurt a fly get thrown to the dogs because of that belief.
The quote your addressing here is in response to my Robert Boatman Quote
"Carrying A Gun Has Always Been Both a Right And a Duty...A citizen who shirks his duty to contribute to the security of his community is little better than the criminal who threatens it, and is better off living in a society that places lesser demands on his capacity to accept responsibility."
I support this position and here's why. For those who do whatever they need to do to be a licensed and responsible firearms, they contribute to the safety and well being of their community...like a taxpayer who pays what they owe. Then there's, for whatever reason, those who fail to contribute to their community's safety by not carrying a firearm. They skate. They get & enjoy the safety their neighbor brings by doing whatever has to be done to be a responsible licensed firearm owner, but they themselves contribute nothing to the community's safety, like someone who scams on their taxes yet enjoys the benefit of the taxes their neighbor pays. Yes there are exceptions, but...
.
.
.


"The town I live in, while very affluent, has a very small Police force. The running joke my neighbors have is that if their's a home invasion, they'll call me first, then the Police. It's good for a laugh but it's really sad that someone would be content to let the safety of their family rest with an agency that when seconds count, are only minutes away. To put it in more familiar terms, it's like the DJ who paid for his music and the dj who copied someone else's hard drive for his." That whole part right there needs to be explained a lot more because it was understood at it's basic level but did not seem relevant to your logic, but the 1st part seemed to contradict Mr. Boatman's line.
In other words, my neighbors won't become licensed, legal firearms owners, for whatever reason (usually based on feelings and not facts) and therefore don't contribute to the over all safety of the community. They also mock me, but yet openly say that if there was a problem, they would call me before the Police (because I'm armed, trained and would get there in no time as opposed to the Police). So they'll drink from the well, but not contribute to it. For me, i don't understand how anyone can let the safety of their family be left to the Police, rather than taking responsibility ones self. The old saying goes that when seconds count, the Police are only minutes away. The people in my community who don't contribute to the safety of the community (if they're able) ARE, like Boatman said, little better than the the criminals who threaten it.
.
.
.

Then most of the rest of your feed back was absorbed and was actually a little enlightening. I am still on the fence about it. That's why a peaceful conversation is just so effin cool. I just like to look at all sides very closely. Life ain't as simple as a Rubik's Cube.
Thanx...yes it is fun to agree, disagree, debate, argue and learn from one another. ps I'm a big fan too (of yours).
 
Last edited:

Maverick

Pumping It Up
Actually in most states where conceal and carry is leagal you can carry anywhere, (well not in prison or airport etc)...even if the business says "no weapons" my friend is an instructor for the classes and laughs when he sees the sign...yes the business can refuse to serve you if they choose but they can't do anything about you carrying...(please note not all states are conceal carry for those not in the know)...not sure about this state...I for one would rather have 30 people who are sane carrying a weapon than no one and 1 crazy person walking in the room....guns don't kill people...stupid people kill people....
 

djtunes

Checking Reality
A school kid not wanting to his work and an adult who is aware they have a problem controlling their temper, especially if they have kids, is 2 very different things.
I learned to ignore my hot temper before I was even 18yrs. old, and long before I was a parent. Your statement seemed to paint a different picture of me so I must clarify that. I'm sooooo peaceful.

Then I went off on a tangent and rant about ADHD drugs. Sorry for the derail.
 

bill_smith

MobileBeat Moderator
Staff member
I haven't waived the white flag by any means Steve.

I think allowing firearms into classrooms is a stupid idea, period.

And no amount of spouting off about the right to bear arms, collateral damage being OK, will convince me otherwise.

These folks at the university will reap what they sow, believe me. Any idiot with a gun will cause a problem, and it will not be pretty.
 

djtunes

Checking Reality
Apparently, I'm not the only fan of Mr. Boatman's quote...

Complete opinion.

Most of what you say is extremely logical. The notion that someone who does not want to have a gun is comparable to a violent armed criminal is pretty far fetched (to put it nicely). Knowing the many different types of people that make up this country you'd have to recognize the people who "could" get a permit, but really shouldn't be handling a gun. Sort of like the people with driving permits.

Are people who are being prescribed depression medicine permitted?
What about timid people who are going to be unable to use the gun wisely, forcefully, and accurately?

There are a lot of people who probably choose wisely not to have a gun.

You might respond by saying that there are tests involved in getting a permit that help weed these and other kinds of people out. So if someone is not mentally, or physically strong enough to handle a confrontation where a gun would be useful... if that person can't get a permit because of mental illness, or mental or physical handicap... they are not much better than a violent criminal. That's crazy.

The constitution seems like a good place to turn when it comes to the right to own a gun, but on the subject of the right to choose not to own a gun an American becomes little better than a violent criminal.

Rather than taking a stance to debate your previous stance, I ask you to open other doors in your reasoning and think this one through. Unless you never change your mind about anything once it's made up even if there is a substantial argument to support the contrary.

Maybe I'm not seeing this. I'll rehash it. Here is a blanket statement: If you don't carry a gun you are almost as bad as the violent criminals.
Yep... not logical.
 

DJSTEVEZ

DJ Emeritus
Complete opinion.

Most of what you say is extremely logical. The notion that someone who does not want to have a gun is comparable to a violent armed criminal is pretty far fetched (to put it nicely). Knowing the many different types of people that make up this country you'd have to recognize the people who "could" get a permit, but really shouldn't be handling a gun. Sort of like the people with driving permits.

Are people who are being prescribed depression medicine permitted?
What about timid people who are going to be unable to use the gun wisely, forcefully, and accurately?

There are a lot of people who probably choose wisely not to have a gun.

You might respond by saying that there are tests involved in getting a permit that help weed these and other kinds of people out. So if someone is not mentally, or physically strong enough to handle a confrontation where a gun would be useful... if that person can't get a permit because of mental illness, or mental or physical handicap... they are not much better than a violent criminal. That's crazy.

The constitution seems like a good place to turn when it comes to the right to own a gun, but on the subject of the right to choose not to own a gun an American becomes little better than a violent criminal.

Rather than taking a stance to debate your previous stance, I ask you to open other doors in your reasoning and think this one through. Unless you never change your mind about anything once it's made up even if there is a substantial argument to support the contrary.

Maybe I'm not seeing this. I'll rehash it. Here is a blanket statement: If you don't carry a gun you are almost as bad as the violent criminals.
Yep... not logical.
Roger, your points are excellent and while I do have my opinions, I don't have all the answers. That's more or less the whole idea (for me) starting these threads. It's great when people can respectfully exchange ideas and perspectives on which not everyone will agree. If one person comes away with more knowledge or a change of perspective (either way) then the thread has been successful IMHO.

One of the most important decisions one needs to make wrt firearm ownership and carrying or not is to realize if it's for them. If it is, do so, if it's not, don't. One of the critical things with firearm ownership, and in particularly handgun ownership is to know if it's for you or not. One of the key questions in deciding if it's for you is one that many of the better books ask: "if confronted in a life or death situation could you pull the trigger and kill another human being?". That's a highly personal question, but IMHO, if someone can't honestly answer yes, than carrying a firearm is not for them. Right now my wife wants to get her CCP. I love her to death, but she can't keep track of her cell phone, glasses or car keys. I would have serious reservations about her carrying a firearm on a daily basis (and keeping track of it)...which is very different than her getting her CCP, getting training so she would know how to use the firearms we have safely locked away in our home. That being said, her 2nd Amendment Right still needs to remain un-infringed upon. If a person is going to own and/or carry, they need to be able to identify and rise to the responsibility...and make no mistake about it, it's a HUGE responsibility. Another stance I have is that when one is carrying, they need to 100% remain free of alcohol and/or sedative/hypnotic medications & drugs. Alcohol and firearms do NOT mix.

For the record, I never said I agreed with Robert Boatman's quote. I do maintain that it is an interesting point that contains some value and truth.
 
Last edited:

djtunes

Checking Reality
Is it the Glock 26 that you recently got? Would you say that's the best concealed weapon?
 

DJSTEVEZ

DJ Emeritus
Is it the Glock 26 that you recently got? Would you say that's the best concealed weapon?
The Best Concealed weapon is the one with which you shoot the most accurate and with which you can be armed the most often.
There are a lot of issues to consider...

Caliber: 9mm is the most common caliber. It is by far the least expensive and the most widely available worldwide. It's stopping power is considered by the experts as the minimum for a primary carry weapon...but with today's ballistic technology combined with hollow point design, it's pretty damn impressive. Still, if you're up against someone on PCP, nearly everyone is going to want a .45 .

Size: Yes, size matters. 1st, to carry successfully is to be able to carry concealed as often as possible. You want a handgun you can comfortably concealed in your everyday wear. People who've carried for a while will attest that you you will completely change your wardrobe around your firearm if you plan to carry daily. A Ruger LCP (.380) is way easy to conceal, even more so that the legendary Walther PPK which holds the same caliber (.380) while a .45 is like carrying around a professional blow-dryer.

Size II: The firearm you choose to carry daily should be comfortable in your hand when you're using it. Some guys have hands so big they can't use any Glock, while others have hands so small they're limited to smaller handguns. Most shooting ranges will offer rentals of the more popular models over all the calibers. "Try one on" and see what fits you best and which one you seem to get the best results in terms of accurate shooting.

Bullet Count: How many bullets are enough? The size of both the caliber and the firearm you choose will dictate the amount of bullets you'll be afforded to shoot before you have to reload. A revolver usually gives you just 5 while semi-automatic pistols give you up to 3 x that amount. Of course there's the option of carrying additional ammo in the form of speed-loaders for revolvers and magazines for semi-automatic pistols. Carrying extra ammo then too becomes a "carry" challenge...and we haven't even gotten to the subject of holsters!

Reliability & Maintenance: I can't say there's a "bad" firearm out there these day. The science of it all is simply amazing. Revolvers are, by design, pretty much perfect when it comes to functioning correctly. Pistols have the potential to jam, usually from it's owner using cheap Russian ammo and/or poor Pistol Hygiene...a pistol requires regular cleaning and lubrication. the brand you choose will be partially based on how motivated you are to do regular maintenance on your weapon. Take Sig Sauer & Glock. No one will argue that both manufacturers are cutting edge & state of the art. A Glock is like a Honda or Toyota...you can throw in the mud, never clean it, basically treat it like your lawn mower and the gun is going to work. That's part of what has made their brand so highly sought after. It is by far the most commonly used handgun by all of law enforcement in the U.S. A Sig is like a Ferrari or Porsche...it's fancy, and going to require a lot more regular maintenance if you're going to expect it to perform.

Ammo: There's 2 types of Ammo; Full Metal Jacket & Hollow Points. FMJ is for the range. If you shoot a bad guy with one it will go in & out then though up to 6 separate sheets of drywall...meaning you're very likely going to kill or maim someone if you shoot a bad guy with one...much more if you're firing more than one shot...and missing the bad guy(s). Hollow Points don't go in & out. They expand on contact and do as much damage as possible to whatever & whomever they hit. They're what you carry when not at the range...known as "Defensive Carry".

Me: I have 3 pistols, 2 9mm, 1 .380. 1) Walther PPS-9mm-7 bullets in the mag + 1 in the pipe, 2) Glock 26 Gen 4-9mm-10 in the mag + 1 in the pipe, and 3) Ruger LCP-.380-7 in the mag + 1 in the pipe. It's a personal decision, but I carry with a round already chambered.
The Ruger is my daily weekday firearm. Given I dress business casual, it's the only option, especially since I don't wear a jacket/blazer/sport's coat. I prefer a larger caliber, but if I want to carry daily, this is the only option. I use an "Uncle Mike's" pocket holster. I carry 2 additional magazines concealed in a cellphone holster that goes on my belt. On the weekend I go with either of the 2 9mm pistols with a variety of holster options depending on my attire. I love the Galco Executive for tuxedo wear. It accommodates both the Glock 26 as well as the Walther PPS. I rarely leave the house with out 2 additional clips/magazines. If you value your firearm, you want the brand name "Federal" Ammo. It is by far the cleanest ammo, period. It ain't cheap, but it's not much more than the bargain basement crap that will pollute your piece. A good second choice is Winchester White Box (WWB). It's very reasonably priced an nearly as clean as Federal. WWB is available at any Wal-mart...unless of course they're sold out.

You: You'll find out that there is no perfect firearm and it's all about compromise and concessions. Like I said up front, you'll want the weapon with which you shoot the most accurate and with which you can be armed the most often. Odds are that will translate to different firearms for different circumstances. My NRA instructor told us in our basic safety course that it is very rare that anyone buys just one firearm. I laughed at that notion then, but here I am several years later and I own 3 handguns with my eye on another purchase real soon (Ruger LC9). My first purchase was the Walther PPS.




Glock 26-Generation 4

-Z-
 
Last edited:

Ken Heath

Super Moderator...da-ta-daaa!!!
Staff member
This is completely off topic, but I personally don't care for Glock, or 9mm. I carry the venerable and time-tested Colt 1911A1 in .45... if I have to discharge my weapon, I prefer one-and-done! A 9mm goes supersonic and passes right through the target with minimal damage and little energy delivered into the mass, a .45 moves slower and delivers more of it's energy into the target mass. 9mm = still moving towards you, .45 = sit down and shut up!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top