LAWYER!

Hey wait a minute now.. MC is a lawyer and he's a good guy. Of course, there was that one I dated who turned out to have a fiance and 15 other girlfriends all at the same time...

I was quoting 1776 ;)

True. One on one. One bad-guy shooter and one CHL holder. VA Tech, Columbine, Lubys ... and many others ... were not that situation.

Let's be honest. People would have died. When a crazed person starts shooting, people will probably die. But it takes only one clear-headed person with the proper mindset and tools to stop the tragedy short of 32 people.

The seemingly good points about youth also fall apart when you realize no state issues CHL to people under 21. You're not talking freshmen here.

With the changing demographic on today's campus, the increase in numbers of older students, the willingness of some faculty and administration to be responsible for themselves and others, you have a ready-made defense capability.

Those who have taken the time for the background checks for the CHL, who have trained, and who have chosen to spend their money on a good firearm instead of pizza and beer are the ones who would, primarily, be carrying. Not everyone would go get a gun just because he could carry on campus.

You've ignored everything said here about the fact that one clear-headed person will not necessarily stop the tragedy but can just as likely end up another casualty themself or cause other collateral damage, or get shot by the police. Your assumption here is that an armed person would inherently have been able to act appropriately and "do something." Most people wouldn't be able to do anything, gun or not, training or not.

Most people should not do anything even in a one-on- one armed hostage situation. Hostage trainers will tell you this.
Turning 21 doesn't automatically make people more responsible with alcohol, it doesn't do the same with guns either. Adults never shoot a significant other in a fit of domestic violence, only teenagers do that? But, obviously we have to draw some sort of age limit, right? I get that, but a junior is not inherently gifted with maturity in a way that next is your assumption that guns = a line of defense. We don't automatically deputize everyone who carries a concealed weapon.

Texas CHL reqs
The rules for being licensed as a peace officer in TX are here: Texas statutes
Suffice to say the difference is significant.

CHL holders are not inherently going to do the "right" thing, or take the "right" action.They simply don't have the training for it. People who have HAD the training, are former police or military might indeed be the exception to the rule, but are not compelling enough to open entire campuses up to carrying weapons.

Also, not compelling is the fact that campuses are on the whole, pretty safe. CHL holders would not be some line against the darkness, they're just students, with guns. Tragedies on campuses like VTech are incredibly rare. Do we change the rules/laws on a broad scale to try and protect against rare events? I say no. I rather detest the ridiculous security theater of air travel because I believe it is just that, theater. It makes people feel safer without, in my opinion, significantly increasing the safety of the people. Similarly I wouldn't want martial law to prevent crime. There are trade-offs I'm not willing or comfortable making.

Your mindset is guns -> safety. We're suggesting that there is no inherent connection between the two and that more guns increases the possibility of more gun-related accidents and risk management issues. Imagine campus security breaking up a party that they suspect or know contains people with guns? There's just too many ways that can go very very wrong. Odds are VTech would have happened exactly as it did, even if some students carried concealed weapons. And ultimately it's not productive to play "what if" with it, if only because everyone is far more heroic and rational in their heads than they are in the moment.


ETA: And your signature is of the bumper sticker quality that MC was talking about.

Tell that to the mother of the FSU Chi Omega who died at the hands of a 21 year old fraternity member. http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...d.php?t=117709

And let's not forget the 22 year old who shot a shotgun at firefighters from his fraternity house.
http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...d-1254335.html

Wow...turning 21 just flips a switch on maturity.

Indeed. And though we must draw some sort of age line as we do with age of consent, drinking age, driver's license age, etc. That age isn't a magic number. I'd argue that the environment of college with its excess of alcohol and relatively low level of structure to its life is less conducive to responsibility with firearms than a 21 year old full time employee.

Note: That doesn't mean there are NO responsible people in schools, obviously. This is a statement about the whole, the environment, and exactly what is supported in campus culture.

Question: What would a CHL holder do with his gun while he was asleep? Gun safe? Drawer? In one's home you might feel comfortable putting it in your bedside drawer, in a fraternity house, dorm, or apartment with roommates?

Funny, I was coming in this thread to post these two stories. Let's do the math here. Tragedies on the scale of Columbine and Virginia Tech are extremely rare. So rare that while Virginia Tech was only in the last few years, when people try to show that these events happen all the time and invariably throw Columbine in the mix, they neglect the fact that Columbine was so long ago I was in sixth grade...I'm now a couple years out of college.

Tragic? Absolutely. But hardly commonplace. And I won't even get into the fact that I agree wholeheartedly with the multiple people who are saying that very few people can even responsibly handle themselves with a gun during a real emergency.

On the flip side, you have incidents like those above. Frankly I think it's a wildly bad idea to give college students permission to carry concealed weapons given the fact that they are drinking all the time! Even if nobody manages to pull a Plaxico and shoot themselves accidentally on the walk to class, you are talking about significantly increasing the number of deadly weapons lying around in environments where people are binge drinking, blacking out and stumbling around knocking things over. Let's be real, with the amount of posturing and one-upping that runs rampant in fraternities, there are some chapters where a large number of brothers will probably invest in a handgun if made legal, just to show they can. It's a ticking time bomb situation.

To be honest, like so many anti-gun control propositions, I think the idea just sounds good and patriotic in people's heads without having any sort of base in reality. The idea of a fraternity man saving the lives of dozens of his peers by shooting down the renegade shooter is just an ideal, not a representation of anything that would actually happen in such an event (once again, many people have already made this argument convincingly, there's no need to go into this more at this point). But what you can count on is an increase of drunk accidents like the ones posted above.

Done here.

I'll be carrying. What I'm not carrying is in my gun safe. Please wear a big sign that tells me you don't want me to attempt to save you, in the extremely unlikely event it is necessary.

It's nice that you're carrying. You want 20 bonus points?

Your inability to have a rational discussion about the potential outcomes of something you support says volumes. This post, however, is just plain silly.

Someone remind me not to perform CPR on people who disagree with me politically! Quick, it's dramatic and makes a point!

I guess I wasn't done.

I'm not here to address red herrings.

Nothing in the proposed law says everyone with a CHL must carry, so arguments that everyone will have guns are not based on facts.

Nothing in the proposed law allows people who are not licensed to carry to do so.

Nothing in the proposed law constructs a great big wall around university property to make it "special".

All these laws do is to permit those who are legally eligible to carry a firearm, and who choose to do so, to do so without arbitrary lines in the sand.

The fact that lives could be saved, rather than police tape draped and reports written, is apparently not something on college campuses choose. OK.

And if you don't want me carrying on your campus, you obviously don't want me carrying anywhere else, so you don't want me saving your life. No worries, mate.

I'm going back to fight in favor of the proposed legislation. I can have an effect there.

I don't believe I've seen any. After I finished replying to the post, the only red herrings I've seen were suggested by you, in this post.
No one stated "everyone will have guns."
Also never suggested.

Correct, although not discussed at all here. Current laws in many states consider universities, schools, playgrounds, theme parks, and the state capitol buildings themselves to be "special" in these purposes. Why is that necessarily a bad thing?

Why do you say these lines are arbitrary? Considering that those lines were drawn generally due to the presence of children or for other safety concerns such as the campus being responsible for all housing.

You say "could." But you have no actual evidence that it would happen. Are the risks inherent in, say, 30 more guns on a college campus ever actually paid off in safety benefits? 60? 100? 250? Produce actual evidence or a compelling argument rather than relying on the assumptions you hold. Address issues of campus safety and security when students have guns, rather than ignoring them. Address the incidents that have been mentioned in these threads. Identify an incident where things DID work in the way you're suggesting they would on the campuses where guns are allowed - because there are some.

Actually I just think that the odds of you ever saving anyone's life, much less mine, through carrying a weapon are so slim as to not provide a single shred of argument to support your position.
If this is all you bring to the table, you'll do more damage than good.

Well, Drolefille beat me to it, but just to reiterate...

University property is "special" and is not arbitrarily identified.

I realize that it's really important to some people to practice their right to bear arms. But there are valid reasons why some rights are restricted in some areas.

I also think it is interesting that valid concerns regarding CHL are greeted with "well you just need to wear a sign telling me you don't want me to save your butt when you need it." Not really a valid argument.

BTW, I'm not a fan of vigilante justice. I've also listened to quite a few law enforcement officers and SWAT team leaders who speak about the dangers of approaching hostage situations and violent crime scenes with guns blazing. If the SWAT team wouldn't run in shooting, why would I want an untrained amateur doing it? It's a recipe for disaster.