Wrong. That court decision only applied to the campus grounds. The Oregon court of appeals explicitly stated that schools could still enact no-guns policies within the campus buildings.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
POTUS plea to respectable gun owners to support "common sense" gun laws
- Thread starter Sigsauerosarus Rex
- Start date
-
- Tags
- gun control
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Wrong. That court decision only applied to the campus grounds. The Oregon court of appeals explicitly stated that schools could still enact no-guns policies within the campus buildings.
Honestly, no... I wouldn't consider Aurora to have been a GFZ either... by law. I think the "Right" media won on that one, and managed to get it labelled as a GFZ.
I just hate to see the definition of GFZ be twisted just enough to fit when there's a shooting. To me, personally, a GFZ is a place where firearms are restricted by law (this includes policies enforced by signs in Ohio, for example). That's my definition, and I guess each person has their own.
My workplace has a "no guns allowed" sign on the door, as you're aware. But I don't consider it a GFZ. I feel like the "Right" argues GFZs as laws until there's a shooting... then they get loose with the definition and try and include policies to fit the narrative. They're correct on every aspect of the argument... I don't disagree that the law wouldn't have mattered... but loosening our stances to score points doesn't feel kosher.
Edit: As long as the "Left" is accepting that GFZs include places that merely have policies against guns, then fine. That can be the new definition.
Last edited:
As far as I am aware, the criterion of "restricted by law" is a construct of your own making.
I consider anywhere that asserts "no firearms allowed" to be a gun-free zone. The only difference is that I can disregard those assertions without legal consequence in some places, and in other places I cannot. The personal (i.e. injury, not legal) risk assumed is the same, regardless. Even here in Indiana, I do my best to avoid theaters with "no guns" signs, even though ignoring those signs bears no legal risk or consequence whatsoever.
The reason I consider the restriction by law important... though... is because it's pertinent to mass shooters and the argument against more laws. It needs to be a law (to me) before we can say "The law didn't work" or "More laws wouldn't have helped"
If it's just a policy that absolutely anyone could violate without real repercussions... we can't keep making that argument. Logically we all know it makes no difference if it's a law or not... but if we're going to yell back at the "Left" about the absurd laws they want... the killer had to have broken real laws. His entry of that college, or theater, etc... didn't break any laws. If we're going to argue with the "Left" about gun laws, I want to make sure we're accurate about it, and 100% right. (instead of assuming we're 100% right)
But hey, if the "Right" media can get away with the GFZ argument and the have the "Left" mostly give up on it... more power to them. I'm not fighting against them, I'll remain silent on what I consider a bit of an ethical stretch.
Edit: I noticed I'm seeing this from the angle of the shooter bringing guns onto the premises, and not the victims having a reliable means of self-defense on their person. I can understand, in that light, how calling it a "GFZ" for the sake of the victims makes sense (even though they could still, legally, carry and protect themselves there. Repercussions aren't important to me. Life > Expulsion)
It mattered to the shooter in Aurora. He chose that specific theater, out of all available - and it was the only one posted "no guns".
Because getting expelled from school isn't a "real repercussion"?
The killers obviously broke real laws. They committed murder. Their choice of victims, however, was influenced by the prohibition (by policy or by law) of firearms at the locations they chose to commit their crimes. There is no stretch there.
You're right, I edited my post to reflect this aspect.
Not to me. A student is able to conceal a firearm until the day they need it.
My edit touches on this. I wasn't looking at it from the victim's angle.
You and I agree on that point, but it is a risk assessment that law-abiding people should not be forced to make in the first place.
Under no circumstances do laws, policies, or any other means of asserting "gun free zones" help anyone but would-be criminals. Such assertions have no impact other than to cause innocent, law-abiding people to disarm themselves, and render them defenseless against would-be criminals who, in all circumstances, disregard those "gun free" (and "assault free" and "robbery free" and "murder free") assertions.
I vote we just ban schools to end campus shootings. Cheaper to do and closes the idiot factory. Those who are truly educated are largely self educated anyway. There's very little a professor can give you that curiosity and a good library cannot.
eldirector
Grandmaster
Glad you aren't my doctor!
Politifact says the claim that 90% of Americans want BG checks on all purchases is "true"
Jeremy Bird says 90 percent of Americans want mandatory background checks for all gun purchases - TRUE
I'd like to see where that poll came from.
Looks like a lot of the polls this is based on were of 500-2000 people. That's definitely "all Americans"
Jeremy Bird says 90 percent of Americans want mandatory background checks for all gun purchases - TRUE
I'd like to see where that poll came from.
Looks like a lot of the polls this is based on were of 500-2000 people. That's definitely "all Americans"
You might be surprised.
There are non-gun "conservatives" who actually support our side that act like it would be no big deal to concede this. They don't understand the particulars or repercussions that would come, essentially eliminating private sales and gifts.
Hiding behind the catch phrases "background checks" and "gun safety" this is essentially creating a registration of all firearms.
We all know what registration leads to, right?
Last edited:
That's actually rarely true. My experience and education is in two disciplines, electronics and software engineering, so I'll speak about that. A rigorous program shapes the student more than just learning on your own can. I've worked with self-taught engineers and college degreed engineers. And I've worked with some very bright self-taught engineers. However, I have to say that some of the finest engineers I've worked with graduated from U of L JB Speed School of Engineering. I am damned impressed with their output. A grueling, demanding professor who knows much more than you do will push you to learn so much more about the craft than just studying on your own.
Your curiosity can only lead you to learn the things you're curious about. Assuming you have the intelligence to grasp the full depth of your curiosity, you're still limited to the breadth of your curiosity. If all that is more than what a professor can teach, then you're right. But you'd need to be exceptionally intelligent for that to be true. And that kind of intelligence is exceptionally rare.
Consider the source. At that link, Politi"fact" asserts as "true" the claim, based on polls, that 74% of NRA members agree with UBCs - even though NRA membership is unpublished and not distributed.
I've had a lot of friends express that they agree with having background checks on all purchases. Typically, once I talk to them about the current law and what purchases already are mandated to go through BG checks, talk to them about why mandating personal transaction BG checks is an issue, and then talk to them about how it would institute a de facto universal registration and why that is a big issue, they are no longer of the opinion they started with.
That, or they just agree with me to shut me up.....Who knows what's going on in peoples heads.
That, or they just agree with me to shut me up.....Who knows what's going on in peoples heads.
That's the main point with the polls being cited: they are push polls, with intentionally misleading questions - the results of which are used to make claims contrary to what the poll respondents actually believed they were saying.
I've had the same experience. It doesn't surprise me that most Americans would support UBC. They've bought into the fallacy that a background check is a good predictor of violent people. So why not make that universal? So then they buy into the fallacy that a UBC can even work. So far, the states that have enacted them are seeing disappointing participation. No matter how much they mandate background checks on private transactions, it is still effectively voluntary.
If the media gave a fair representation of the entire issue, I doubt there's even be a majority of Americans that support UBC.
