TerraPrime Posted October 15, 2014 Author Share Posted October 15, 2014 ... wow. Any relation to these people who conclusively proved that Anita previously faked death threats against herself because the offending tweets used proper punctuation and grammar? I browsed that site. Oh my goodness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Don't. They're a troll site. They specialise in riling people up with headlines like "5 Reasons to date a girls with an eating disorder". The redpillers have taken to archiving everything to save deny people views. Not a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deleted01 Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 No. The police should not violate state law. Period. End of discussion. That should be self evident. The job of the police is not, actually, to protect people, At least not primarily. The job of the police is to enforce the law.The primary objective of UK police is to preserve life and property. I thought police in the US were supposed to serve and protect. Such a state law is ridiculous, as is your stance on the matter. What if the event had gone ahead, and someone had been injured by someone carrying a weapon? I'd like to know where the hell the police were, and why those people weren't being protected.It should be "self evident" that people's lives are more important than being able to carry a gun on a fucking university campus (and in a school, fully loaded?! I don't even). The US never fails to amaze me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 The primary objective of UK police is to preserve life and property. I thought police in the US were supposed to serve and protect. Isn't that just a motto for one state blown into prominence by TV? Never trust TV, or mottos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deleted01 Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Isn't that just a motto for one state blown into prominence by TV? Never trust TV, or mottos.More than likely, but my point remains the same. Though this is probably a discussion best had elsewhere - sorry for the derail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Surely the concealed carry law only prevents the police from confiscating the weapons or denying entry? The police refused to even check people for weapons so she could be aware of a potential threat. Is the state capitol is a public building, can you take guns into that? If so surely there is still some security on whether people actually do have weapons on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Surely the concealed carry law only prevents the police from confiscating the weapons or denying entry? The police refused to even check people for weapons so she could be aware of a potential threat. Is the state capitol is a public building, can you take guns into that? If so surely there is still some security on whether people actually do have weapons on them. Buildings like that are probably exempt. The location for the event probably wasn't. So, at that point, it becomes a matter of asking the cops to basically play -ineffectual-security for any event that can't handle their own issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Buildings like that are probably exempt. The location for the event probably wasn't. So, at that point, it becomes a matter of asking the cops to basically play -ineffectual-security for any event that can't handle their own issues. If the building is "public" it seems like security there SHOULD be an issue for the cops. You can't just place excessive constraints on an institution because it's "public" in one sense, but declare it has to act as a "private" institute in all other areas. Or maybe you can, but it's fucking ridiculous and unreasonable if you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 If the building is "public" it seems like security there SHOULD be an issue for the cops. You can't just place excessive constraints on an institution because it's "public" in one sense, but declare it has to act as a "private" institute in all other areas. Or maybe you can, but it's fucking ridiculous and unreasonable if you do. Security as in "stand around until someone is shot" sure. But if they can't take people's guns they're essentially tagging people, which seems like a job for private security. Those guys would be able to do what the police couldn't/wouldn't no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Security as in "stand around until someone is shot" sure. But if they can't take people's guns they're essentially tagging people, which seems like a job for private security. Those guys would be able to do what the police couldn't/wouldn't no? Well isn't it more confusing anyway as a college it has it's own police - there is no private security? Anita is including them (explicitly so - she said USU and Utah police) in that refusal to look for weapons. I'm putting them both under the banner of "police" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 The primary objective of UK police is to preserve life and property. I thought police in the US were supposed to serve and protect. Such a state law is ridiculous, as is your stance on the matter. What if the event had gone ahead, and someone had been injured by someone carrying a weapon? I'd like to know where the hell the police were, and why those people weren't being protected.It should be "self evident" that people's lives are more important than being able to carry a gun on a fucking university campus (and in a school, fully loaded?! I don't even). The US never fails to amaze me. You are conflating a couple different issues here. If you dont see why letting the police simply ignore the law is an issue, then I don't really know what else to tell you. I'm just gonna leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balefont Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Wow. The feminism thread turned into a gun law thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Wow. The feminism thread turned into a gun law thread. It's america. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Private property owners have every right to ask concealed or open carry gun owners to keep their weapons off their property. This should include the administrators of the University of Utah. That police would refuse to search to enforce such a request is profoundly ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Private property owners have every right to ask concealed or open carry gun owners to keep their weapons off their property. This should include the administrators of the University of Utah. That police would refuse to search to enforce such a request is profoundly ignorant. So...if I have a party I can now call the police to do my searching for me as a private property owner (real police, not campus police-I have no idea what's going on there)? When am I entitled to do this? 5 people? Ten? If I own a business? If I can pick up the phone? When can the police refuse me? And is this just limited to carry permits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Private property owners have every right to ask concealed or open carry gun owners to keep their weapons off their property. This should include the administrators of the University of Utah. That police would refuse to search to enforce such a request is profoundly ignorant. Isn't the University of Utah a public university - and therefore a state actor - and therefore subject to stricter Constitutional and statutory standards than a private college? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Private property owners have every right to ask concealed or open carry gun owners to keep their weapons off their property. This should include the administrators of the University of Utah. That police would refuse to search to enforce such a request is profoundly ignorant. The issue seems to be whether or not a university counts as a "public school" for the purposes of the law? (since the law specifically allows you to carry weapons in "public schools".) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted October 16, 2014 Author Share Posted October 16, 2014 Utah is one of 7 states where concealed carry is explicitly permitted on college campus. The other states all have some exception languages for schools and public spaces that allow individual campuses to deny concealed carry. On my campus, for instance, all doors are tagged with a sticker showing that no guns are allowed inside the building, and that's legal because the Illinois concealed carry laws allow campuses to do this. explicitly ban guns on campus. In Utah, apparently, the law specifically says that college campuses must allow concealed carry. Source: http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/guns-on-campus-overview.aspx In the United States, all 50 states allow citizens to carry concealed weapons if they meet certain state requirements. Currently, there are 20 states that ban carrying a concealed weapon on a college campus: California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming. In 23 states the decision to ban or allow concealed carry weapons on campuses is made by each college or university individually: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. Due to recent state legislation and court rulings, 7 states now have provisions allowing the carrying of concealed weapons on public postsecondary campuses. These states are Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah, and Wisconsin. In March 2014, Idaho's legislature passed a bill premitting concealed weapons on campus and making it the 7th state to permit guns on campus. Utah remains the only state to have statute specifically naming public colleges and universities as public entities that do not have the authority to ban concealed carry, and thus, all 10 public institutions in Utah allow concealed weapons on their property. Recently passed Kansas legislation creates a provision that colleges and universities cannot prohibit concealed carry unless a building has "adequate security measures," however, governing boards of the institutions may still request an exemption to prohibit for up to four years. Wisconsin legislation creates a provision that colleges and universities must allow concealed carry on campus grounds, however, campuses can prohibit weapons from campus buildings if signs are posted at every entrance explicitly stating that weapons are prohibited. All University of Wisconsin system campuses and technical community college districts are said to be putting this signage in place. Legislation passed in Mississippi in 2011 creates an exception to allow concealed carry on college campuses for those who have taken a voluntary course on safe handling and use of firearms by a certified instructor. Emphasis added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyanna Stark Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 So I guess this means not just being a woman talking about feminism is what is needed to get targeted, but that simply listening to what feminists have to say is enough to get threatened by a massacre.Stannisaurus, are you noting this down for further reference?In any case, perhaps we can leave the gun laws to the us politics thread?Sorry for being extremely absent, but work plus family commitments lately have been brutal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 It's a beautiful example of US gun laws being used to silence political speech. The Westborough Baptist Church? Sure. Wanna talk about how women might not be equal though? Best put on a bullet-proof vest. A real reflection of priorities here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.