They really should ban weapons of any kind from college campuses all across the nation. Oh wait, nevermind.

This is, as I've said before, a phony argument. Who knows why you keep posting it.

Your argument is, as I've said before, a phony argument. Who knows why you keep posting it.

Yah Dennis, it makes a lot more sense to make laws banning weapons that already have laws that ban them. Much better than your crapy arguements.

Uh, I'm not making any argument (save that yours is trivial and irrelevant, which it stitll is). Perhaps you didn't notice.

By the way, mimicry is soooooo two years-old. How old are you, Dennis?

Wow, I feel so belittled. You really blew my argument out of the water with that one, Nate. (There, let's try sarcasm--it's soooooo four years old.)

By the way, if you really wish to continue this "argument" (you really should look up the definition of that word), you can pick up where I left off last time.

Uhm?

My earlier point was a philosophical one -- a sort of thought experiment for which I don't really have any empirical figures. That's why that part of the debate stalled.

BUT (this is a big but) that doesn't change the fact that no one -- neither opponents or proponents of conceal and carry legislation -- have ever said that it will stop criminals from carrying guns. You're scoring no points by continuing to post on this (in fact, you're making yourself look like you don't understand the point all, which reflects rather badly on you).

What exactly do you think my point is? It's obvious to me that you don't understand the point I'm trying to make, or else you wouldn't be babbling on about stopping criminals from carrying guns. Nobody mentioned "that it will stop criminals from carrying guns," at least not until you just brought it up.

I'm pretty sure (as far as I can gather from the post) that the point you're trying to make is that laws against concealed weapons are ineffective at stopping criminals (Case Western had a ban; you're emphasizing that it didn't actually stop the criminal from doing what he did). Fair enough. Keep beating this drum; just don't expect to ascend above the most rudimentary level of policy analysis (which is where you're hovering right now).

Scoring points against strawmen isn't exactly the most impressive way to make your point.

Take this for example: In Utah, 2.2% of the population holds valid CCW permits. If you translate that percentage to the total number of students and staff at the University of Utah, that would mean that over 1,000 people at the U can legally carry anywhere in the state, except on campus. Before the rule banning concealed weapons came into effect, were there really thousands of murders on campus? Were people brandishing weapons during heated scholastic debates? Hardly. The harm in not allowing these people to carry their weapons is much worse than that the threat posed by the possibility of one of them flying off the handle and shooting up the place. Am I wrong? Do you see what my point is now?

I don't see how that point emerges from the post (in fact, I'm pretty sure that it doesn't at all), but it's a valid point nonetheless.

But was there ever a time when concealed weapons were OK on campus?

If there was, how many people actually carried? If it was really 2.2%, where's your evidence that violence prior to the ban was not higher than it is now?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. You want evidence that the incidence of violent crime has gone up since the ban? In reality, there have been no gun crimes in more than 30 years at the University of Utah.

My point is not that gun violence will go either up or down because of a gun ban--rather, people will be able to protect themselves from that violence if they choose to, without the threat of being expelled or fired.

You see, somebody can threaten my life regardless of whether or not I'm carrying a concealed weapon. If it happens when I'm not carrying because of a ban on guns, the violence against me still occurs. If it happens when I am carrying, the violence against me still occurs, but I am able to defend myself. Either way--whether I have a gun or not--the rate of violence remains the same, not including my own self defense.

You're right, Dennis. This thoughtful and subtle discussion was really characteristic of a troll. Though I do appreciate you throwing the epithet at me. I've learned never to try to engage in a productive and respectful debate with you again (God knows people will take offense to that!)