Prestige of Penn vs. Duke vs. Cornell Forum

[r6_philly]

UVA has like 0 lay prestige, even among educated people. Penn just has 0 lay prestige among people who don't know which schools are in the ivy league.

So then Cornell for the North, Duke for the South. Penn for Delaware Valley.

I live here, so it's hard for me not to vote for Penn, lay or educated.

[r6_philly]

Yes but without guidance and stated test, restrictions is as good as a ban. Try getting a permit in Jersey.

When you say permit, do you mean for a handgun or for concealed carry?

Concealed. You can buy handguns for sporting purposes but you can't carry. I realize this is beyond the scope of the decisions, but if self-defense is a recognized right, NRA will fight to extend it beyond domicile.

[thickfreakness]

Also, to stay on topic, I don't think the difference in "prestige" between these three schools is important enough on its own to justify choosing one over another.

My friends in the south had a much more positive reaction to me getting in Duke than I expected. Duke > UVa for them, which is a surprise (maybe it shouldn't be).

Maybe among non-laywers. Just anecdotally, I get the sense that UVA Law carries a touch more legal prestige in the south than Duke. However, I think that's primarily because there are many more UVA alums practicing in the south than Duke alums. I don't think the small prestige difference is going to have a significant effect on placement power between the two schools in the region, unless you have some alumni loyalty impacting placement (which is very possible). The most important non-grade factor for getting into a southern secondary market seems to be showing genuine ties to the market and fit with a firm. If you can't do that, no one's going to call you back.

[Veyron]

Yes but without guidance and stated test, restrictions is as good as a ban. Try getting a permit in Jersey.

When you say permit, do you mean for a handgun or for concealed carry?

Concealed. You can buy handguns for sporting purposes but you can't carry. I realize this is beyond the scope of the decisions, but if self-defense is a recognized right, NRA will fight to extend it beyond domicile.

Ah, I thought that Heller was mostly about the right to possess (hand)guns.

[thickfreakness]

Yes but without guidance and stated test, restrictions is as good as a ban. Try getting a permit in Jersey.

When you say permit, do you mean for a handgun or for concealed carry?

Concealed. You can buy handguns for sporting purposes but you can't carry. I realize this is beyond the scope of the decisions, but if self-defense is a recognized right, NRA will fight to extend it beyond domicile.

Ah, I thought that Heller was mostly about the right to possess (hand)guns.

Heller was constructed as a narrow kind of test-case, where the guy who was arrested was a federal peace officer who had the gun in his home. Thus, SCOTUS was able to construe the case more narrowly by talking about the right to bear arms in the home for self defense, instead of the right to pack heat on the streets of DC.

[johnnyutah]

A recognized individual right in the BOR isn't going to stay unincorporated for long

7th Amendment right to jury trial?

[r6_philly]

A recognized individual right in the BOR isn't going to stay unincorporated for long

7th Amendment right to jury trial?

Well played.

Although maybe we can present value the $20.

[unc0mm0n1]

You can get a carry permit in NC and MI Sorry Veyron

Edit: Oh yeah and VA too lol.

You don't need a permit if you open carry in VA. Wouldn't be a good idea probably, but you technically don't need it.

Yeah, I know people that do. I wouldn't want to open carry anyway.

Edit:

--ImageRemoved--

Growing up in a place where gun violence was rampant then moving to Europe where gun violence (almost no one can own/carry a gun there) is non-existent. I wish all states were bright yellow.

[r6_philly]

Growing up in a place where gun violence was rampant then moving to Europe where gun violence (almost no one can own/carry a gun there) is non-existent. I wish all states were bright yellow.

There are historical reasons for this, and personally I wouldn't have liked us to remain under European control.

[thickfreakness]

A recognized individual right in the BOR isn't going to stay unincorporated for long

7th Amendment right to jury trial?

Yes, that's an exception to the rule, but the other clause of the sentence you quoted was "especially when it's gun rights with a conservative majority on the court."

[Veyron]

You can get a carry permit in NC and MI Sorry Veyron

Edit: Oh yeah and VA too lol.

You don't need a permit if you open carry in VA. Wouldn't be a good idea probably, but you technically don't need it.

Yeah, I know people that do. I wouldn't want to open carry anyway.

Edit:

--ImageRemoved--

Growing up in a place where gun violence was rampant then moving to Europe where gun violence (almost no one can own/carry a gun there) is non-existent. I wish all states were bright yellow.

Why don't you move back to Europe then?

[ScrabbleChamp]

You can get a carry permit in NC and MI Sorry Veyron

You don't need a permit if you open carry in VA. Wouldn't be a good idea probably, but you technically don't need it.

Yeah, I know people that do. I wouldn't want to open carry anyway.

Edit:

--ImageRemoved--

Growing up in a place where gun violence was rampant then moving to Europe where gun violence (almost no one can own/carry a gun there) is non-existent. I wish all states were bright yellow.

Logic fail... I hate when people say this crap... Sure, gun violence is less, but other forms of violent crime are not. If people can't shoot each other, they'll stab each other, instead, or use other available weapons. Violence isn't created by guns, it is created by people who use whatever means they have to wield their violence. Not to mention, most guns (see: >90%) used in violent crimes are obtained illegally.

[AreJay711]

You can get a carry permit in NC and MI Sorry Veyron

You don't need a permit if you open carry in VA. Wouldn't be a good idea probably, but you technically don't need it.

Yeah, I know people that do. I wouldn't want to open carry anyway.

Edit:

--ImageRemoved--

Growing up in a place where gun violence was rampant then moving to Europe where gun violence (almost no one can own/carry a gun there) is non-existent. I wish all states were bright yellow.

Logic fail... I hate when people say this crap... Sure, gun violence is less, but other forms of violent crime are not. If people can't shoot each other, they'll stab each other, instead, or use other available weapons. Violence isn't created by guns, it is created by people who use whatever means they have to wield their violence. Not to mention, most guns (see: >90%) used in violent crimes are obtained illegally.

Yeah and there was one study that found violent crime decreased when states liberalized handgun carry. I think some of the methods were questioned but there was definitely no increase in violent crimes anyway. We would expect a decrease to happen though since it is more likely the average non-criminal would be armed at any given time.

[r6_philly]

Yeah and there was one study that found violent crime decreased when states liberalized handgun carry. I think some of the methods were questioned but there was definitely no increase in violent crimes anyway. We would expect a decrease to happen though since it is more likely the average non-criminal would be armed at any given time.

The classic gun control line is when you make guns easier to obtain, more of them fall into criminal's hands. But since we have no idea how many illegal guns are in circulation, I don't know if we can argue if there is already a surplus of guns for criminals.

Criminals will be armed regardless. Allowing citizens to arm will cause some deterrent effect. But it could also cause more gun violence because we can't trust every idiot with guns. Jury is out on who's more right.

[ScrabbleChamp]

Yeah and there was one study that found violent crime decreased when states liberalized handgun carry. I think some of the methods were questioned but there was definitely no increase in violent crimes anyway. We would expect a decrease to happen though since it is more likely the average non-criminal would be armed at any given time.

The study found that overall, violent crime decreased when right-to-carry laws were in place. However, for full disclosure, passive crimes (no personal contact) like burglary and breaking and entering went up. Makes perfect sense, though. Criminals no longer wanted to rob people or commit crimes where they'd have to face their victim for fear of being shot. Instead, they burglarized them, instead. But, overall, violent crime went way down.

[Reedie]

Yeah and there was one study that found violent crime decreased when states liberalized handgun carry. I think some of the methods were questioned but there was definitely no increase in violent crimes anyway. We would expect a decrease to happen though since it is more likely the average non-criminal would be armed at any given time.

The NRC (the closest thing there is to a gold standard is research) has examined the statistical evidence that liberal carry laws or carry requirements decrease gun violence. There isn't any. Now, that doesn't mean that gun restrictions lower violence (I suspect they don't).

See http://volokh.com/2004/12/27/john-lott- ... ls-report/ for Jim Lindgren's review of the NRC report. For background Lindgren was one of the people to show that the anti-gun historical work _Arming America_ suffered from the most serious possible kinds of research problems (including citing documents that don't appear to exist) so he is no gun rights hater.

[Veyron]

-

[ScrabbleChamp]

Yeah and there was one study that found violent crime decreased when states liberalized handgun carry. I think some of the methods were questioned but there was definitely no increase in violent crimes anyway. We would expect a decrease to happen though since it is more likely the average non-criminal would be armed at any given time.

The classic gun control line is when you make guns easier to obtain, more of them fall into criminal's hands. But since we have no idea how many illegal guns are in circulation, I don't know if we can argue if there is already a surplus of guns for criminals.

Criminals will be armed regardless. Allowing citizens to arm will cause some deterrent effect. But it could also cause more gun violence because we can't trust every idiot with guns. Jury is out on who's more right.

Yes, but we can track the gun crimes committed by those who are licensed to carry. I know in Florida, the report for 2010 was ridiculously low.

In 2010, number of:
Total number of permit holders: 786884.
Permit holders that committed a crime resulting in revocation of permit: 520.
Percentage of permit holders committing a crime resulting in revocation of permit: 0.0007.

[r6_philly]

[

Yes, but we can track the gun crimes committed by those who are licensed to carry. I know in Florida, the report for 2010 was ridiculously low.

In 2010, number of:
Total number of permit holders: 786884.
Permit holders that committed a crime resulting in revocation of permit: 520.
Percentage of permit holders committing a crime resulting in revocation of permit: 0.0007.

How many of those not charged shootings would have been charged in a duty to retreat state? FL has one of the best castle doctrine laws right?

We should probably look at the number of shooting incidents, not just crimes.

[AreJay711]

Yeah and there was one study that found violent crime decreased when states liberalized handgun carry. I think some of the methods were questioned but there was definitely no increase in violent crimes anyway. We would expect a decrease to happen though since it is more likely the average non-criminal would be armed at any given time.

The classic gun control line is when you make guns easier to obtain, more of them fall into criminal's hands. But since we have no idea how many illegal guns are in circulation, I don't know if we can argue if there is already a surplus of guns for criminals.

Criminals will be armed regardless. Allowing citizens to arm will cause some deterrent effect. But it could also cause more gun violence because we can't trust every idiot with guns. Jury is out on who's more right.

In response to everyone: I don't think it matters if that gun carry reduces gun violence as long as it doesn't increase it -- basically there isn't really a reason to take away a freedom if there is no benefit. Also, carry laws don't really make it easier to get a gun but actually make it less likely for a gun to be unattended and easy to steal.

[ScrabbleChamp]

[

Yes, but we can track the gun crimes committed by those who are licensed to carry. I know in Florida, the report for 2010 was ridiculously low.

In 2010, number of:
Total number of permit holders: 786884.
Permit holders that committed a crime resulting in revocation of permit: 520.
Percentage of permit holders committing a crime resulting in revocation of permit: 0.0007.

How many of those not charged shootings would have been charged in a duty to retreat state? FL has one of the best castle doctrine laws right?

We should probably look at the number of shooting incidents, not just crimes.

I would love to do that. Unfortunately, the state doesn't publish that statistic. As far as your first question, I don't know. However, my personal belief is that if you are attacking me and I feel my life is in danger, shoot to kill is the only way. When I was in CA, the law there was that you had to fire one warning shot, then, if that didn't work, you were only allowed to shoot the attacker once. If you shot twice, you could be charged with felony assault with a deadly weapon. I'm sorry, but if you are attacking me, I'm going to kill you. I don't want to shoot you in the arm and risk you getting up and killing me or my family.

[r6_philly]

I would love to do that. Unfortunately, the state doesn't publish that statistic. As far as your first question, I don't know. However, my personal belief is that if you are attacking me and I feel my life is in danger, shoot to kill is the only way. When I was in CA, the law there was that you had to fire one warning shot, then, if that didn't work, you were only allowed to shoot the attacker once. If you shot twice, you could be charged with felony assault with a deadly weapon. I'm sorry, but if you are attacking me, I'm going to kill you. I don't want to shoot you in the arm and risk you getting up and killing me or my family.

A temple law student was charged last summer for shooting and killing someone in a fight with his carry weapon. He was threatened but not to the point of deadly force I don't think. Also the problem is apparently when you pull a gun on someone, sometimes it escalate into a shooting unnecessarily. I don't know what's better, shooting someone and get charged, or risk being shot first. I just try not to get into fights.

[ScrabbleChamp]

I would love to do that. Unfortunately, the state doesn't publish that statistic. As far as your first question, I don't know. However, my personal belief is that if you are attacking me and I feel my life is in danger, shoot to kill is the only way. When I was in CA, the law there was that you had to fire one warning shot, then, if that didn't work, you were only allowed to shoot the attacker once. If you shot twice, you could be charged with felony assault with a deadly weapon. I'm sorry, but if you are attacking me, I'm going to kill you. I don't want to shoot you in the arm and risk you getting up and killing me or my family.

A temple law student was charged last summer for shooting and killing someone in a fight with his carry weapon. He was threatened but not to the point of deadly force I don't think. Also the problem is apparently when you pull a gun on someone, sometimes it escalate into a shooting unnecessarily. I don't know what's better, shooting someone and get charged, or risk being shot first. I just try not to get into fights.

TITCR.

As far as the student goes, if the other party did not have a weapon, the student should have been charged. There has to be some real threat of loss of life. If some drunk guy is coming at you with his fists, that's not a situation that requires deadly force. However, if the other party had a gun, or any other deadly weapon, even if the weapon is not brandished, the student may have felt that his life was in danger, and therefore deadly force is authorized.

[cornellbeez]

Penn has the least lay prestige. Many "educated" people think it is Penn State. I know businessmen in Manhattan making 200k+ who think Penn is Penn State. Cornell has the most lay prestige among different regions. Duke is prestigious in the South and I guess Northeast.

Lay prestige doesn't mean much, though. At similar costs, I would go to Penn. It is the best school out of the three.