If Keenum catches heat, it should be for us losing R1 status on his watch, not this imoQuote:
Originally Posted by LC Dawg
Printable View
If Keenum catches heat, it should be for us losing R1 status on his watch, not this imoQuote:
Originally Posted by LC Dawg
Here's a solution that State and Ole Miss admin is kicking around per an attorney friend of mine.
If this bill passes and both presidents hope it doesn't, they will lease the stadium on game day to a event operation company who will then put on the game. This will allow it to be a private event thus allowing the event production company to ban guns.
It's not that rigorous. Pay the money and take the class. You get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Interpolation_Dawg_EX
The media is not who is passing this call it whatever you want law.
You are comparing apples and oranges. Carrying a gun in the public is much different than allowing an armed individual who may have been drinking in the midst of 75k people in a confined space with limited exit points. The risk for the second scenario is obviously much higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderman
To the person who said they trust their own skill more than security at the game: every security officer you see wearing a gun at the game is a certified law enforcement officer. That?s qualification 4 times a year and scenario training at least once a year. Plus a lot of mandatory gun retention and strategy training in between. They may not all look like Navy Seals but I guarantee you they can put a bullet where it?s supposed to go and, more importantly, know when not to fire and how to handle a crowded situation. If your training is on par with that then you are good to go.
But...if there is a situation in the stadium and you pull your gun and your not wearing the correct identifier I can pretty much guarnatee your day will end quickly and poorly. Guns in a stadium or arena is just a very bad idea.
On the idea that we should just strap it on and duke it out with the SEC/NCAA because we feel Mississippi law trumps them, we've tried that before. And lost. Big time. Larry Gillard. Lesson should've been learned, but some seem to be confusing their bravado with reality.
To those that claim "this doesn't change the law", you're engaging in intellectual dishonesty. We know about 2011. But 2011 did not re-codify premises law. You still may be limited by your voluntary purchase of a ticket/license. No one is forcing you to go to football games. If you don't want to agree to leave your pacifier at home, you don't have to buy a ticket. (Or "peacemaker" if you prefer). But the ticket that is offered to you for purchase carries with it conditions. One of which is that you may not bring a weapon into the stadium. This bill would eliminate the ability of the school to impose that condition on your purchase of the license.
If you refuse to acknowledge this distinction when making your argument, and insist on claiming "this doesn't change the law; it's already on the books", you're flat out lying just to serve your self-interest.
On your peacemaking abilities in a large crowd up to 65,000 and more, MSU, and the SEC, and just about every college campus, and high school, and professional team, and concert arena, and international sports arena, have decided that it prefers to leave the peacemaking to official security. Can the world be made perfectly safe? Of course not. But they've made that decision based not only on common sense, but on significant research and consultations with security experts the world over. Most seem to think that's a wise decision. If you don't, this is America. You have the option to stay the hell at home and let the rest of us keep enjoying SEC football.
Just to play devil?s advocate here, but here is one possible unintended consequence if they do that. An EC goes to the game and is unarmed due to this scenario. At 11:30pm he and his family are walking back to their vehicle parked on the other side of campus. On the way back in a poorly lit area they are assaulted and robbed at gun point and his wife is shot in the process. He may then be able to sue the university for not providing adequate security and denying himself the ability to defend himself and his family. And before you say that would never go anywhere remember a woman sued McDonalds because she spilled coffee on herself and got burned and she claimed they were negligent by not putting a warning on her cup.Quote:
Originally Posted by WinningIsRelentless
Very good postQuote:
Originally Posted by WesternSkyDawg
ExactlyQuote:
Originally Posted by drunkernhelldawg
We would be breaking league mandated security policies. It?s why we had to go to clear bags and have metal detectors at the Hump. We can?t just go our own way with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach007
I know people think the McDonalds lawsuit was frivolous but if you’ll forgive the website. It was the quickest one I could find.Quote:
Originally Posted by starkvegasdawg34
Read this: https://www.treehugger.com/corporate...e-lawsuit.html
Large crowd was shot up not long ago... the guy didnt have anybody shooting back at him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Liverpooldawg
Nobody went to that concert thinking they were not safe.
Again... university of utah... over a decade of allowing it.
He also want standing in the middle of a crowd...Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach007
90% of the state is Mormon. They don't drink.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach007
He was 1,000 feet away shooting from a hotel window. Your argument is equivalent to saying all planes should allow passengers to carry guns cause 9/11.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach007
Tell me how you with your small concealed carry pistol would have been able to do anything about the Vegas sniper. This I have to hear. You must be Matt Dillon. Do you have to reload or do you just load on Sunday?Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach007
Ah, the random "good guy with a gun argument". In the case of a mass shooting, has the shooter ever been brought down by a random CC holder who was not a LEO?? I can't think of an instance where that happened. And since mass shootings happen almost daily, you would think that the some "good guy with a gun" would have gotten lucky enough to pop off a shot by now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach007
One of the bands that was on stage ran to their RV, all of them had concealed carry pistols. They realized that the cops wouldn't know they weren't bad guys with the chaos going on so they left them in the RV. If you and another person start running around with guns then you don't know who the bad guy is. Unless you see them shoot someone and then you shoot them, who is to say another person doesn't shoot you because they saw you gun down the actual shooter. I don't care how much training you have to go through to get your permit, that situation would be extremely chaotic and even professionals would have a tough time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Liverpooldawg
That's not the point. The point is and will remain that those people were not protected and their right to try was taken from them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Liverpooldawg
I agree. In that situation anyone who pulled a gun on the concert floor would have almost certainly been gunned down by the police.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tbonewannabe
Mass shootings are becoming a common occurrence to the point that the President doesn't even hold press conferences about them now. It took him over 24 hours to even tweet about it and nothing is being done. Australia had a mass shooter in 1996 that led to eliminating automatic and semi automatic guns. They haven't had a mass shooting since but thanks to money and politics the US is just doubling down on everyone having guns. I am all for having a gun for home protection, hunting, or sport shooting but there is exactly zero people in the world that need assault weapons other than military.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg
For all the people that say the people need weapons to keep the government in check, there are drones with bombs now so if the government really wanted to create a genocide, there isn't anything anyone can do. A random militia in the middle of nowhere doesn't stand a chance if the USA military wants them to disappear. The US military is kicking total ass in Afganistan and Iraq, those are against militias armed a lot better than any person in the US could be.
I'd argue their right to try and protect themselves was put in serious jeopardy when psychos are allowed buy 30 AR-15's in a yearQuote:
Originally Posted by Coach007
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/arli...ng-reports-sayQuote:
Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg
Quote:
Hero' stopped mass murder by crazed bar patron who was armed to the teeth, police say
You brought it up as an example of how concealed carry would have helped prevent a mass shooting. I want to hear how you would have been able to do anything from 1000 feet away with your little concealable pistol. I have one pistol, a Beretta 92 9mm. That's one of the most stable pistols out there. I'm pretty decent with it out to 20 yrds or so. Beyond that it gets chancy for me. I will acknowledge I'm not the greatest shot in the world but pretty much anyone would need a HUGE amount of luck to hit what they were aiming at with that nice heavy, stable Beretta at the distance the that shooter was operating at. You would just as likely hit someone in the next room.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach007
But in 1792 our forefathers had the ability to see into the future of over 230 years and they knew that everrrrrrbody needs an assault rifle that hadn't even been invented yet cause what they wrote 3 centuries ago should apply to all USA citizens till the end of time. Cause 2nd amendment boy!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tbonewannabe
Again... not the point. You can not protect 65k people. It is impossible.
Too much money involved now. The NRA is one of the biggest lobbiest compared to the amount of money spent buying politicians and how big their membership is. You would think weapon manufacturers would be content with about 70% of the United States budget being spent on the military. Anytime you can lose 1 trillion dollars and don't know where it went, you have too much money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
People owned canons....Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
Technically, that wasn't a mass shooting. I'll give the benefit of the doubt that he probably kept others from being harmed. However, it's not the type of "public assembly" situations we have been discussing - large volumes of people, such as a sporting event or concert, or just a school in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach007
But if that shooter was in the crowd five feet from you...say like the Ft. Hood attack or Pulse Nightclub in Orlando or Sandy Hook...then your 9mm could have made a world of difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Liverpooldawg
I'd like to see them carry a cannon into DWS. I'd buy extra popcorn just to watch them get it all the way to their seat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach007
Don't you know we are supposed to be strict constitutionalists in this discussion and believe that the Founders were anointed by God to write those exact words that are 100 % applicable for ever? Get with program mane!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
I miss the cannon in DWS. Always though that would be fun weekend duty for the ROTC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
And you are with a concealable pistol I guess. If you pulled it in that situation the most likely result is YOU would be shot by police.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach007
Right.. it wasnt a mass shooting because a c.c stopped it. Now had he not stopped before it got to that point, you would have said it doesn't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg
Fact, police stated thats what it would have been.
Stop changing subjects. You stated the founding fathers did not know that people would have powerful weapons. My point was they most certainly did... private citizens owned cannons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
Just curious on a typical 24 hour day what percentage of it do you have a gun within 5 feet of your body? Do you carry a gun with you at all times every day?Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach007
Whose changing subjects? I didn't bring up cannons you did. Cannons don't apply as "concealed carry" weapons do they? Can't conceal them and you can't carry them so brining up cannons that less than 1% of the population owned is well stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach007
That's MY choice. Not yours. There are not enough police in all of starkville to protect all of starkville and people being shot.... let alone enough to to cover all of starkville and a game with an extra 65!Quote:
Originally Posted by Liverpooldawg
Can the guard every square foot of that stadium? No
You know that. This is 5he same concept as Chicago. Remove the guns from everybody, but a person who is intent on harming people.
No... You suggested that the Founding Fathers had no idea about powerful weapons and now are trying to apply that to bringing those into a stadium.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
The fact is the FFs knew about powerful weapons and knew that weaponry improves. Yet they still wrote it without limitations. Private citizens owned cannons.... People owned more powerful guns through out our history. That's a separate point than CC a weapon into a sports venue.
And you know it.