IanHarrop 42
Recommended Posts
Richards 0
QuoteDoesn't matter, this is a private school - they get to make their own rules.
So if you are not accepting government money then you can ban anyone for any reason or are there limits to this?
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
If someone wants to go out to the range for fun thats one thing, but when it gets to the point when they are carrying them everywhere they go it is just a problem waiting to happen. Especially when you add a high emotion activity like football.
IanHarrop 42
QuoteQuoteDoesn't matter, this is a private school - they get to make their own rules.
So if you are not accepting government money then you can ban anyone for any reason or are there limits to this?
I don't know about for any reason but business can set rules for people that want to use their service.
Here's a reference about a city stating they have the same rights as business to resirct guns.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1771955/posts
"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy
ECVZZ 0
QuoteAs far as I know, all schools ban guns on campus don't they?
U of Utah just tried that. Didn't work out so well for them.
G. Jones
"I've never been quarantined. But the more I look around, the more I think it might not be a bad idea."
Quote>Gosh only knows where that coach got the idea that owning a gun
>makes you 50% likely to be shot.
In 2000, there were 52,000 violence-related and 23,000 accidental gun injuries in the US per the CDC. Put another way, accidental gun injuries (most of which happen to gun owners) are roughly 50% of the intentional gun injuries.
which would be only 33% of the total (and of course only happening to 1 in 4 or 5000 gun owners).
Interesting that the injury ratio is this high - accidents are far less likely to be fatal than 1 in 3. (1 in 50)
Richards 0
QuoteI don't know about for any reason but business can set rules for people that want to use their service.
Here's a reference about a city stating they have the same rights as business to resirct guns.
Understood. If what the coach meant was not to bring guns to practice or when they are travelling with the team then that is his right I suppose (as it is fine for restaurent owners to have a no guns rule). I interpreted the article as though he was saying that merely being a concealed carry permit owner was enough for him to chuck you off the team and that is where I was a bit put off. It was like he was saying that someones personal life was his business.
Anyway, I guess if the law allows him to do that then it allows him to do it. I do not agree with it but hey.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Andy9o8 2
School sports team coaches, especially football coaches, setting standards of conduct for players is nothing new, and it has nothing to do with rights. Haircut standards, no-beard standards, special dress code, etc. It's a matter of team discipline. Don't like it? You don't have to be on the team.
When I was on the football team in (public!) high school, the coach didn't allow us to date or have girlfriends during the season. Period. He felt that it was distracting for us. And he meant business, too. We had to do it on the sly, and God help us if we got caught. If Coach saw you so much as walking hand in hand with a girl during the season, your ass was grass.
When I was on the football team in (public!) high school, the coach didn't allow us to date or have girlfriends during the season. Period. He felt that it was distracting for us. And he meant business, too. We had to do it on the sly, and God help us if we got caught. If Coach saw you so much as walking hand in hand with a girl during the season, your ass was grass.
DaVinci 0
He can do as he pleases. They can leave if they don't like it.
PRIVATE parties are allowed to make rules like this. And I support their right.
I am not allowed to carry a gun at work and my company has the right to prevent me.
PRIVATE parties are allowed to make rules like this. And I support their right.
I am not allowed to carry a gun at work and my company has the right to prevent me.
QuotePrivate School. Their sandbox, their rules.
Exactly and if you dont like it go somewhere else. End of story. I really dont see a problem here. Look at Augusta National Golf Club. They didn't admit the first black member till 1990 and I think it's still an all mens golf club. Private club they can admit whomever they please.
Richards 0
QuoteI am not allowed to carry a gun at work and my company has the right to prevent me.
From what I read in the article it seemed like he was saying that they are prohibited at all times from having a gun, not just at practice. For your work to say "do not bring one here" is one thing, but to say "do not even use one on your own time" sounds a bit harsh. Apparently that is allowable but it does not seem right.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Rainbo 0
And what if the player were a multisport competitor. For example, what if he were on the schools rifle team, you know they still have those.
Rainbo
TheSpeedTriple - Speed is everything
"Blessed are those who can give without remembering, and take without forgetting."
TheSpeedTriple - Speed is everything
"Blessed are those who can give without remembering, and take without forgetting."
BillyVance 34
QuoteQuoteIf it is legal, i don't see how he can prohibit it. It is their personal business. Why tell people how to live?
Because they want to and they can, as a private organization.
And most of the players are on athletic scholarship, so they must play by the rules.
"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban
Quote
And most of the players are on athletic scholarship, so they must play by the rules.
however, is it fair when the rules change midway?
Leaving isn't an option for those old enough (21) to buy a handgun. Transfers must sit out the following season and lose that year of eligibility. If they're red shirt juniors or seniors, they don't have a year.
DaVinci 0
QuoteFrom what I read in the article it seemed like he was saying that they are prohibited at all times from having a gun, not just at practice. For your work to say "do not bring one here" is one thing, but to say "do not even use one on your own time" sounds a bit harsh. Apparently that is allowable but it does not seem right.
You are correct. I think it is a bit much, but I also agree he has the right. It is a private school and they are on the team. They have the right to quit the team.
I want to shake the Coach's hand.
But first, does he have the balls to cut his star player when he gets caught with a gun?
But first, does he have the balls to cut his star player when he gets caught with a gun?
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
Then if that student was prevented from participation in the other sport he would be the victim of an unjust policy that penalized him for being in a lawful, school sponsored activity.
BillyVance 34
QuoteI want to shake the Coach's hand.
But first, does he have the balls to cut his star player when he gets caught with a gun?
Alabama's former coach Mike Shula didn't have the balls to cut Juwan Simpson when he was arrested for having a unregistered or stolen gun in his possession.
You can bet your ass the new coach Nick Saban is gonna run a tight ship over there from now on.
"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban
Fast 0
QuoteQuoteProper or not in your mind, it is legal.
"Should not" does not mean "Can not."
I'm not arguing legality. I'm arguing morality.
Just because someone can do something, doesn't mean that it's proper that they should, or that we should all do nothing and let them.
That's an awfully low standard of acceptance to put on infringements of constitutional rights.
I agree. If this is the standard that we are going to start going by in this country then any coalition of companies could overthrow the government just by putting a ban on "X" or don't use our product.
Vote George Bush the fifth or you can't buy oil. It is basically the exact same thing as what you are talking about with regards to gun ownership. Both of these are a company infringing on constitutional rights. While some have brought up other companies desire to limit your abilities to do things while away from work, I belive that there are quite a few cases supporting that they don't get away with it.
~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka
kallend 2,106
QuoteAnd what if the player were a multisport competitor. For example, what if he were on the schools rifle team, you know they still have those.
I'm sure exceptions are allowed for such reasons. However, (1) if the kid is on a football scholarship, the likelihood that they are allowed another activity is zero. (2) U. of Miami doesn't have a rifle team. Out of over 3,000 accredited colleges and universities in the USA, fewer than 50 have rifle teams.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuoteAnd what if the player were a multisport competitor. For example, what if he were on the schools rifle team, you know they still have those.
I'm sure exceptions are allowed for such reasons. However, (1) if the kid is on a football scholarship, the likelihood that they are allowed another activity is zero.
Scores of Div I football players run track. Many play basketball.
They would have recruiting issues if they flat out prohibited other sports.
JohnRich 4
Quote>You are making an error in logic by assuming that their chances of
>being shot will be reduced by forfeiting their own gun ownership.
If you do not own a gun, you can not shoot yourself/be shot by your own gun by definition.
You are presuming that all accidental gun injuries occur to people who owned the gun which fired the errant bullet. Not true. Plenty of people are accidentally injured from the guns of others, even though they had nothing to do with guns themselves.
QuoteIn 2000, the CDC estimated there were 23,000 accidental gunshot wounds in the US
Of which only about 700 were fatal. Those have decreased 65% since 1930, while the U.S. population has more than doubled and the number of guns has more than quadrupled. Firearm accidents account for only 1% of fatal accidents and only 0.05% of all deaths in the U.S.
QuoteIn 2000, there were 52,000 violence-related and 23,000 accidental gun injuries in the US per the CDC. Put another way, accidental gun injuries (most of which happen to gun owners) are roughly 50% of the intentional gun injuries.
Well, if that's where the coach got his "50-50" thing, then he still needs to go back to Logic 101 class. Just because you own a gun, does not mean that you are 50% likely to be shot. Not even close.
kallend 2,106
QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd what if the player were a multisport competitor. For example, what if he were on the schools rifle team, you know they still have those.
I'm sure exceptions are allowed for such reasons. However, (1) if the kid is on a football scholarship, the likelihood that they are allowed another activity is zero.
Scores of Div I football players run track. Many play basketball.
They would have recruiting issues if they flat out prohibited other sports.
You are correct.
U of Miami still doesn't have a rifle team.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,106
QuoteQuote>You are making an error in logic by assuming that their chances of
>being shot will be reduced by forfeiting their own gun ownership.
If you do not own a gun, you can not shoot yourself/be shot by your own gun by definition.
You are presuming that all accidental gun injuries occur to people who owned the gun which fired the errant bullet. Not true. Plenty of people are accidentally injured from the guns of others, even though they had nothing to do with guns themselves.QuoteIn 2000, the CDC estimated there were 23,000 accidental gunshot wounds in the US
Of which only about 700 were fatal. Those have decreased 65% since 1930, while the U.S. population has more than doubled and the number of guns has more than quadrupled. Firearm accidents account for only 1% of fatal accidents and only 0.05% of all deaths in the U.S.QuoteIn 2000, there were 52,000 violence-related and 23,000 accidental gun injuries in the US per the CDC. Put another way, accidental gun injuries (most of which happen to gun owners) are roughly 50% of the intentional gun injuries.
Well, if that's where the coach got his "50-50" thing, then he still needs to go back to Logic 101 class. Just because you own a gun, does not mean that you are 50% likely to be shot. Not even close.
That's probably why football coaches don't teach the statistics courses at reputable schools.
Now, I don't know the fraction of his gun owning team members that have accidentally injured themselves - maybe it's more than the national average.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Doesn't matter, this is a private school - they get to make their own rules.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites