https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ituations/

Not only does he shove his gun control agenda down our throats on a sports website. He uses false narratives to do so.

Well there do seem to be complications with campuses and the law and athletes and the public. Looking at some of the examples cited. Weird thing to be mad over given there does seem to be real policy, money, enforcement, etc., issues that are ongoing here.

(08-31-2017 02:08 PM)Wooglin157 Wrote:  Well there do seem to be complications with campuses and the law and athletes and the public. Looking at some of the examples cited. Weird thing to be mad over given there does seem to be real policy, money, enforcement, etc., issues that are ongoing here.

There is no logical reason that an individual with a legal concealed carry permit, should not be able to carry that weapon into a stadium, government building, or college campus. Being in those structures does not increase their likelihood to use deadly force. Furthermore, in many locales where firearms are banned, there is a substantial increase in crime. Who would have thunk it?

Anyway, not the point. The point is, nobody cares about Dodd's opinion regarding this societal and political issue. Make no mistake, this is an opinion piece. As such, CBSSports just lost this reader. Much like ESPN has lost me in every aspect accept live events.

No, a mass gathering of people has different implications than a random encounter on the street or in someone's home. Stuff like that can cause a panic and magnify the situation greatly. Causing many more resources to be used. And if something did go down, there are so many people there, it's going to be that much harder to ensure the right person is confronted and shot at. Too much risk. Add in alcohol and other things, it easily could become a massive mess.

All of our amendments have certain limits on them. Even the 1st. This idea that there should be an uncontrolled, unchecked stance on anything and everything just does not fit with reality or how people work in general.

Edit: I don't care about your reading preferences. Not sure why you need to broadcast that to me. But given his very clear and verified examples, it is in part an athletics story too. And his job is athletics. Athletics does not exist in a bubble unaffected by other things in society. And I say this hating Dodd's guts too. He's written some real stinkers over the years.

(08-31-2017 02:20 PM)Wooglin157 Wrote:  No, a mass gathering of people has different implications than a random encounter on the street or in someone's home. Stuff like that can cause a panic and magnify the situation greatly. Causing many more resources to be used. And if something did go down, there are so many people there, it's going to be that much harder to ensure the right person is confronted and shot at. Too much risk. Add in alcohol and other things, it easily could become a massive mess.

All of our amendments have certain limits on them. Even the 1st. This idea that there should be an uncontrolled, unchecked stance on anything and everything just does not fit with reality or how people work in general.

Edit: I don't care about your reading preferences. Not sure why you need to broadcast that to me. But given his very clear and verified examples, it is in part an athletics story too. And his job is athletics. Athletics does not exist in a bubble unaffected by other things in society. And I say this hating Dodd's guts too. He's written some real stinkers over the years.

Concealed Carry is not uncontrolled. There is a vetting and licensing process.

I wasn't referring to CC itself. But uncontrolled access as a license holder. I've owned and shot plenty of guns. I'm aware of the terminology and procedures.

I live in Texas and Tennessee. I have a concealed carry license. I don't want to carry or anyone else to carry in any environment where there are mass amounts of alcohol consumed in conjunction with irrationally high tribalism(like sporting events).

I have seen enough fights at sporting events to know that I dont want any of those people armed.

(08-31-2017 02:15 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 02:08 PM)Wooglin157 Wrote:  Well there do seem to be complications with campuses and the law and athletes and the public. Looking at some of the examples cited. Weird thing to be mad over given there does seem to be real policy, money, enforcement, etc., issues that are ongoing here.

There is no logical reason that an individual with a legal concealed carry permit, should not be able to carry that weapon into a stadium, government building, or college campus. Being in those structures does not increase their likelihood to use deadly force. Furthermore, in many locales where firearms are banned, there is a substantial increase in crime. Who would have thunk it?

Anyway, not the point. The point is, nobody cares about Dodd's opinion regarding this societal and political issue. Make no mistake, this is an opinion piece. As such, CBSSports just lost this reader. Much like ESPN has lost me in every aspect accept live events.

"No logical reason"?!! Are you insane?

(08-31-2017 02:49 PM)coogrfan Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 02:15 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 02:08 PM)Wooglin157 Wrote:  Well there do seem to be complications with campuses and the law and athletes and the public. Looking at some of the examples cited. Weird thing to be mad over given there does seem to be real policy, money, enforcement, etc., issues that are ongoing here.

There is no logical reason that an individual with a legal concealed carry permit, should not be able to carry that weapon into a stadium, government building, or college campus. Being in those structures does not increase their likelihood to use deadly force. Furthermore, in many locales where firearms are banned, there is a substantial increase in crime. Who would have thunk it?

Anyway, not the point. The point is, nobody cares about Dodd's opinion regarding this societal and political issue. Make no mistake, this is an opinion piece. As such, CBSSports just lost this reader. Much like ESPN has lost me in every aspect accept live events.

"No logical reason"?!! Are you insane?

No, I just carry everyday of my life for protection. I hunt on most weekends. I also have carried in combat situations. Thus, I have experience carrying a firearm. I would say I am quite rational. You conveniently cut out the second part of my sentence in your quote. Again, there is no logical reason that somebody who is licensed (meaning vetted, with background check, and in most states, required to pass a training test) to conceal carry should then be restricted from carrying into government buildings, events, campuses, etc. You either are responsible to carry, or you are not. It is as simple as that. Am I more likely to use my firearm irresponsibly in a Stadium, then I would be walking down Center Street in the town I live in? The obvious answer is no.

Regarding the comments by the Memphis poster above, if you are currently drinking, you lose the right to carry. Thats how it is in every state that allows you to carry into bars or other establishments where drinking is present. So again, what is the difference?

(08-31-2017 02:31 PM)Wooglin157 Wrote:  I wasn't referring to CC itself. But uncontrolled access as a license holder. I've owned and shot plenty of guns. I'm aware of the terminology and procedures.

So, you are less responsible with your firearm in large groups of people, or in a State Government building, than you are when you walk into Wal-Mart?

Regarding your points about "mass gatherings," you are more likely to need to defend yourself (against individual or otherwise) in that environment, thus you should not be restricted.

Again, it comes down to being responsible. I legally drove a firearm onto a campus today. I then legally left it in the car when I went into the bookstore. Would it have been dangerous for me to carry it into said bookstore? Obviously not, if it is assumed I am responsible to carry it elsewhere. But its the law, so I abided by it.

The good news is, the pendulum is shifting more towards responsible firearms ownership and use, as opposed to against. Arkansas already acknowledged this and has made the change. I expect South Carolina to do the same soon.

If anything it makes mass shootings MUCH easier. Now, I want you to say that your gun will protect you from such an event (because I know that will be your retort). But, it doesn't allow for things like situational awareness or inadvertent casualties of bystanders. If one guy starts shooting while everyone around him is standing and cheering, chances are no one is going to know who is doing so immediately. Then a lot of people will panic and start running. Then, people like you will draw there weapons and "protect" themselves.... except, they're going to be looking for the guys with the guns, which is... you guessed it... everybody that's carrying. It just seems like a shootout between a couple hundred people to me.

You don't need a gun in a stadium to protect yourself anymore than you need a katana or a bazooka. I bet they would let you wear a bullet proof vest though, if you're that much of a worrier.

(08-31-2017 03:06 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 02:49 PM)coogrfan Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 02:15 PM)fanhood Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 02:08 PM)Wooglin157 Wrote:  Well there do seem to be complications with campuses and the law and athletes and the public. Looking at some of the examples cited. Weird thing to be mad over given there does seem to be real policy, money, enforcement, etc., issues that are ongoing here.

There is no logical reason that an individual with a legal concealed carry permit, should not be able to carry that weapon into a stadium, government building, or college campus. Being in those structures does not increase their likelihood to use deadly force. Furthermore, in many locales where firearms are banned, there is a substantial increase in crime. Who would have thunk it?

Anyway, not the point. The point is, nobody cares about Dodd's opinion regarding this societal and political issue. Make no mistake, this is an opinion piece. As such, CBSSports just lost this reader. Much like ESPN has lost me in every aspect accept live events.

"No logical reason"?!! Are you insane?

No, I just carry everyday of my life for protection. I hunt on most weekends. I also have carried in combat situations. Thus, I have experience carrying a firearm. I would say I am quite rational. You conveniently cut out the second part of my sentence in your quote. Again, there is no logical reason that somebody who is licensed (meaning vetted, with background check, and in most states, required to pass a training test) to conceal carry should then be restricted from carrying into government buildings, events, campuses, etc. You either are responsible to carry, or you are not. It is as simple as that. Am I more likely to use my firearm irresponsibly in a Stadium, then I would be walking down Center Street in the town I live in? The obvious answer is no.

Regarding the comments by the Memphis poster above, if you are currently drinking, you lose the right to carry. Thats how it is in every state that allows you to carry into bars or other establishments where drinking is present. So again, what is the difference?

Would the fact that there have been 29 mass shootings by persons with concealed carry permits since 2007 be reason enough for you?

"A mass shooting is defined as the killing of three or more people consistent with the federal definition contained in the “Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012.” The following vignettes describe the circumstances for non-self defense incidents in which private individuals with permits to carry concealed handguns killed three or more persons (not including the shooter) in one incident."

http://concealedcarrykillers.org/mass-sh...y-killers/

(08-31-2017 03:29 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  If anything it makes mass shootings MUCH easier. Now, I want you to say that your gun will protect you from such an event (because I know that will be your retort). But, it doesn't allow for things like situational awareness or inadvertent casualties of bystanders. If one guy starts shooting while everyone around him is standing and cheering, chances are no one is going to know who is doing so immediately. Then a lot of people will panic and start running. Then, people like you will draw there weapons and "protect" themselves.... except, they're going to be looking for the guys with the guns, which is... you guessed it... everybody that's carrying. It just seems like a shootout between a couple hundred people to me.

You don't need a gun in a stadium to protect yourself anymore than you need a katana or a bazooka. I bet they would let you wear a bullet proof vest though, if you're that much of a worrier.

Wow, lots of rediculousness here.

Why don't you provide an example of your mass shooting, concealed carry returns fire, inadvertent casualties concern.?

No comment on your chicken comment. It's that silly.

(08-31-2017 03:11 PM)fanhood Wrote:  So, you are less responsible with your firearm in large groups of people, or in a State Government building, than you are when you walk into Wal-Mart?

Regarding your points about "mass gatherings," you are more likely to need to defend yourself (against individual or otherwise) in that environment, thus you should not be restricted.

Again, it comes down to being responsible. I legally drove a firearm onto a campus today. I then legally left it in the car when I went into the bookstore. Would it have been dangerous for me to carry it into said bookstore? Obviously not, if it is assumed I am responsible to carry it elsewhere. But its the law, so I abided by it.

The good news is, the pendulum is shifting more towards responsible firearms ownership and use, as opposed to against. Arkansas already acknowledged this and has made the change. I expect South Carolina to do the same soon.

You're thinking about only yourself here. You're failing to realize group dynamics and how people behave in a large crowd. You may be perfect and would never do anything wrong or misinterpret anything, but others may not be. So you pull out a gun in a massive crowd could spark panic and confusion in the larger group. Creating an even larger mess. And that makes it even more difficult to ensure the right person is targeted. And it makes it more difficult for police to control the situation.

It's why you're not allowed to yell bomb in an airplane or fire in a theater (clearly violating the 1st amendment). The laws recognize that groups of people are very different than one off situations like on the street or in a home.

Not only that, generally large gatherings like this are crawling with cops. So it's not like there are a shortage of active professionals there in even shouting distance. It's not like having to rely on the response time of 911. Which is a frequent argument for carry everywhere types.

(08-31-2017 03:34 PM)fanhood Wrote:  Wow, lots of rediculousness here.

Why don't you provide an example of your mass shooting, concealed carry returns fire, inadvertent casualties concern.?

No comment on your chicken comment. It's that silly.

And where are your stats stadiums are in desperate need of armed civilians needed to keep the peace?

There are plenty of stats and stories about "responsible" gun owners ending up killing someone that they or their tool should not have, though.

(08-31-2017 03:34 PM)Wooglin157 Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 03:11 PM)fanhood Wrote:  So, you are less responsible with your firearm in large groups of people, or in a State Government building, than you are when you walk into Wal-Mart?

Regarding your points about "mass gatherings," you are more likely to need to defend yourself (against individual or otherwise) in that environment, thus you should not be restricted.

Again, it comes down to being responsible. I legally drove a firearm onto a campus today. I then legally left it in the car when I went into the bookstore. Would it have been dangerous for me to carry it into said bookstore? Obviously not, if it is assumed I am responsible to carry it elsewhere. But its the law, so I abided by it.

The good news is, the pendulum is shifting more towards responsible firearms ownership and use, as opposed to against. Arkansas already acknowledged this and has made the change. I expect South Carolina to do the same soon.

You're thinking about only yourself here. You're failing to realize group dynamics and how people behave in a large crowd. You may be perfect and would never do anything wrong or misinterpret anything, but others may not be. So you pull out a gun in a massive crowd could spark panic and confusion in the larger group. Creating an even larger mess. And that makes it even more difficult to ensure the right person is targeted. And it makes it more difficult for police to control the situation.

It's why you're not allowed to yell bomb in an airplane or fire in a theater (clearly violating the 1st amendment). The laws recognize that groups of people are very different than one off situations like on the street or in a home.

Not only that, generally large gatherings like this are crawling with cops. So it's not like there are a shortage of active professionals there in even shouting distance. It's not like having to rely on the response time of 911.

I wouldn't say I am failing to realize group dynamics. I am simply siding with the responsible gun holder here. Furthermore, there are no real modern day example of a citizen causing a panic in response to mass shooting or terrorist event. If there was, I would consider it. Let me knownifninam wrong.

Regarding yelling "bin" in a crowded plane or yelling "fire" I'm a movie theater, that is abbas example. That is illegal as you are creating a threat that is a clear and present danager. Carrying into a Stadium, or defending life or limb is not creating that threat.

Regarding your third paragraph, examples in Spain, France, etc, would suggest that you are not exactly correct here. I would argue there potentially could have been less loss of life if someone with a firearm would have been on the plaza. Clearly this cannot be proven, but is what I would surmise.

(08-31-2017 03:36 PM)Wooglin157 Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 03:34 PM)fanhood Wrote:  Wow, lots of rediculousness here.

Why don't you provide an example of your mass shooting, concealed carry returns fire, inadvertent casualties concern.?

No comment on your chicken comment. It's that silly.

And where are your stats stadiums are in desperate need of armed civilians needed to keep the peace?

There are plenty of stats and stories about "responsible" gun owners ending up killing someone that they or their tool should not have, though.

Certainly not in stadiums, but many many examples (anecdotally) where armed citizens in crowded areas, saved lives. I'll PM you with some a bit later when I am at my computer.

This is a futile argument guys. Both sides are entrenched. I CC, as well, but not in a crowded stadium. I agree with aTxTiger, on this one.

Like I said, I have owned and shot plenty of guns over the years. I know the talking points and benefits/drawbacks. You can save the effort on the literature.

Yup, I have a .357 (not a great concealed carry gun to be fair) but there's no reason it should be in a stadium. Millions of people have come and gone through stadiums without carrying in a firearm and been completely fine. There's no reason to introduce a possibility for danger into a crowded environment.