GreekChat.com Forums

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)
-   News & Politics (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=207)
-   -   TX considering concealed guns on campus (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=118520)

Rebis 02-24-2011 08:55 PM

TX considering concealed guns on campus
 
I searched to see if there was a thread on this already but I did not find anything.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/22...uns-on-campus/

Texas State Legislature will be looking at allowing people with a Concealed Handgun License (CHL) to carry guns on campus. I am generally conservative in my political views and support the right to bear arms but this a topic that I am strongly opposed to. It is a simple pro vs. cons for me. The actual threat of a shooting at a school is unbelievably small. The idea of CHL's on campus so that students or professors with guns could stop a potential shooter is merely an excuse to play cowboy. These are SCHOOLS, a place of learning, not the wild west and there is no reason for guns to be present. Frankly, I don't trust anyone with a CHL with my life. I just see so many negatives of this that they outweigh the positives. From what I hear, this is likely to pass into law. This just makes me furious.

Elephant Walk 02-24-2011 09:23 PM

People who are willing to take a handgun to kill someone won't have a problem taking it on to campus, would they?

I'm in full-support.

dnall 02-25-2011 10:11 AM

I've been following this for quite a while. I have somewhat mixed feelings about it.

I know a lot of students and professors already carry guns on campus. It's actually completely legal with the exception of going in buildings - outside in the quad is legal. This would just make it legal inside too.

You're not supposed to depend on someone else with a CHL to protect your life. They aren't a cop. They have a weapon to protect their own life.

While the insane shooter on campus thing is rare, though occurring a lot more lately, that's really not the whole point. I don't think anyone has a problem with an 18yo girl that has to walk across campus or through urban areas of town having a pepper spray in her hand. There are quite a lot of burglaries, rapes, and robberies on college campuses.

I remember a story from last year about a girl at SMU who was walking along a street directly next to campus in broad daylight, got snatched by 2-3 guys and gang raped for hours before being dumped somewhere. I'm not saying everyone must carry a gun, but how can I possibly deny someone the right to protect themselves if they think it's necessary?

SWTXBelle 02-25-2011 10:19 AM

If it passes I plan on getting my CHL. It's not those who have had the extensive training required for CHL I would worry about - and given that when I had a college student making threatening gestures to me during the class the college would do NOTHING (this was pre-VT; I wonder if they would do nothing now?) I think being able to protect myself would be a good thing. I solved the threatening student problem by having my brother the SWAT team officer come escort me a few classes - but not everyone has a police officer handy.

DGTess 02-25-2011 05:21 PM

I've been helping to craft this legislation in several states.

A person with a CHL is not going to turn into a raving lunatic when s/he steps across the street from Starbucks on to campus. Nor is a criminally minded person going to give a darn that the campus is a gun-free zone. In fact, the criminal likely prefers an unarmed target.

Go, Texas!

SigKapSweetie 02-25-2011 05:48 PM

I'm completely behind this. As the saying goes, if having a gun is a crime, only criminals will have guns. Those who would be carrying guns on campus with the intent to use them in an unlawful manner won't be affected by a law like this one. This evens the playing field for law-abiding citizens like the rest of us.

Rebis 02-25-2011 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DGTess (Post 2033679)
I've been helping to craft this legislation in several states.
Nor is a criminally minded person going to give a darn that the campus is a gun-free zone. In fact, the criminal likely prefers an unarmed target.

Go, Texas!

I have not been to every college in Texas, but I have been to many and none are the seething underworld of criminals where a gun is needed to protect yourself. and yes my life is in danger from persons with a CHL as I would be in the classroom where they are shooting back. I know several people with a CHL in Texas and none are trained to "defend" an attack on themselves in a public place like a campus. Legally this will be in interesting topic in regards to the responsibility of the person with the CHL should they hit anyone else other than the shooter. The point being guns do not belong on university properties in the hand of civilians, that is what law enforcement is for. The threat of danger is not great enough to justify guns being on campus

dnall 02-25-2011 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebis (Post 2033701)
I have not been to every college in Texas, but I have been to many and none are the seething underworld of criminals where a gun is needed to protect yourself. and yes my life is in danger from persons with a CHL as I would be in the classroom where they are shooting back. I know several people with a CHL in Texas and none are trained to "defend" an attack on themselves in a public place like a campus. Legally this will be in interesting topic in regards to the responsibility of the person with the CHL should they hit anyone else other than the shooter. The point being guns do not belong on university properties in the hand of civilians, that is what law enforcement is for. The threat of danger is not great enough to justify guns being on campus

I respect what you're saying, but I've heard that argument from a lot of people that haven't been touched by violent crime.

I gave an example before that concerned me at the time because my girlfriend lived in the immediate area when it happened. See story:
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/121...-smu-rape-case

The police came along after the fact and did their job, which is to catch criminals so the court system can hold them accountable. Sometimes they get lucky and are able to prevent a crime before it happens, but they can't be everywhere.

Not to bring up old wounds, but Virginia Tech has a police dept, so does every other place these things have happened. Reality is law enforcement is incapable of preventing violent crimes, otherwise there wouldn't be any. These happen all the time on college campuses and in college towns. If that's my wife/gf/sister/daughter, or anyone else for that matter, and I'm not there to protect them or have the means to do so, then I either have to make sure they have the means to protect themselves, or I feel like I'm just as guilty as the one shoving them in that car to go have their life destroyed in the worst possible way.

I'm a lot more scared of that then I am the chance of a stray bullet from a CHL holder hitting an innocent bystander.

Oh, and from what I remember, Texas law provides pretty good protections to someone defending themselves. So long as the CHL holder followed the law and their training, the liability would belong to the criminal. Don't quote me on that though, I'm not a lawyer or anything.

DGTess 02-26-2011 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebis (Post 2033701)
I have not been to every college in Texas, but I have been to many and none are the seething underworld of criminals where a gun is needed to protect yourself.

Neither was Virginia Tech. Or Columbine. Or Luby's Cafeteria. Or any other mass-shooting you'd like to name. Therefore, a moot point.

Quote:

The point being guns do not belong on university properties in the hand of civilians, that is what law enforcement is for. The threat of danger is not great enough to justify guns being on campus.
I'd very much like to know what makes University property different from the street alongside the University. Or the Starbucks across the street.

In my opinion, it is the duty of the American citizen to, within the confines of the law, be responsible for his own safety. Therefore, one who, within the confines of the law, carries a firearm and uses it in self-defense or in defense of the life of another (phrases which, though while not all-encompassing, generally cover the laws of most states that do not deny the right to self-defense) is taking responsibility. The police are not Big Brother, thank the gods; they cannot be everywhere, again, thank the gods.

SydneyK 02-26-2011 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DGTess (Post 2033854)
I'd very much like to know what makes University property different from the street alongside the University. Or the Starbucks across the street.

The difference isn't between the properties, it's between the population make-up of the properties. Universities are unique in that they're designed to be something of a stepping stone between living under your parents' thumbs and living by your own rules. Universities have all kinds of rules that other properties don't have. These are safeguards put in place in an attempt to protect students while still maintaining an environment that allows students to make some of their own decisions.

College students are adults who are (frequently) very new to adult life. Few college students come to school equipped with sound judgment and the capability to make tough, adult decisions. That's not a population that screams, "I should be able to bring a gun to class" to me. And I don't even want to think about the challenges of protecting students in residence halls if guns are allowed in their rooms.

AOII Angel 02-26-2011 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SydneyK (Post 2033862)
The difference isn't between the properties, it's between the population make-up of the properties. Universities are unique in that they're designed to be something of a stepping stone between living under your parents' thumbs and living by your own rules. Universities have all kinds of rules that other properties don't have. These are safeguards put in place in an attempt to protect students while still maintaining an environment that allows students to make some of their own decisions.

College students are adults who are (frequently) very new to adult life. Few college students come to school equipped with sound judgment and the capability to make tough, adult decisions. That's not a population that screams, "I should be able to bring a gun to class" to me. And I don't even want to think about the challenges of protecting students in residence halls if guns are allowed in their rooms.

Agreed. We already have the Risk Management Forum peppered with stories of tragic deaths and stupid stunts involving guns in Greek housing. I dread the day when guns are more numerous in student housing. Hormones, alcohol, incompletely matured brains and guns can be a deadly mix.

MysticCat 02-26-2011 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DGTess (Post 2033854)
Neither was Virginia Tech. Or Columbine. Or Luby's Cafeteria. Or any other mass-shooting you'd like to name. Therefore, a moot point.

It's hardly a moot point; it's an unpersuasive or rebuttable point to you and many others. Not the same thing at all.

In much the same way, i have yet to be persuaded that, had others at Va Tech or Columbine or elsewhere been legally carrying concealed weapons, the outcomes would really have been different. People can only speculate as to that.

It's a balance of risks and people will, for a variety of reasons, balance them differently.

Drolefille 02-26-2011 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 2033863)
Agreed. We already have the Risk Management Forum peppered with stories of tragic deaths and stupid stunts involving guns in Greek housing. I dread the day when guns are more numerous in student housing. Hormones, alcohol, incompletely matured brains and guns can be a deadly mix.

I've been going back and forth on this in my head, and this is where I'm ending up I think. That and the fact I'm not convinced that adding more guns to the Virginia Tech situation would have solved anything. As for police not protecting people in Virginia Tech type situations, that's not what police DO. They respond and react, there's no way other than living under martial law to have police presence 24/7 and most people don't want that. It's a trade off - such disturbing massacres are incredibly rare, and in exchange for accepting that risk we don't walk down corridors/streets/cities with police at every possible checkpoint.

I think the belief that citizens who had been carrying concealed weapons would have 'helped' in VTech or similar situations is rooted on the misguided, but incredibly common belief that "if I had been there, I would have done ..." Where "..." is typically something best left to people in movies and in reality you would have been running, screaming, hiding, or bleeding. The odds that you, or anyone, would have whipped out a gun, and shot that guy, hitting and disabling him and rendering him incapable of returning fire, are slim to none. More likely is that he would see 'you' and your gun, and shoot you, since his gun(s) is/are already drawn, and pointed in your general direction. Additionally when the police DO come, they are now dealing with 'multiple shooters' and 'you' innocent not-so-defenseless civilian that you are could very well end up shot yourself. Just as people were saying that the laws in Texas protect people who shoot people in self defense, the police are protected from this as well.

I think people fantasize that if it had been them in a hostage situation at a bank or restaurant, or if it had been them walking down the street witnessing someone get mugged that they would have been able to DO something. Whether they are armed or not. However, most bystanders just won't do anything, it's a fact of human psychology and sociology even if it's a disturbing one. And in a hostage situation it is actually recommended that you NOT play John McClane for rather obvious reasons. You are likely to get everyone killed or injured rather than save the day. When they train civilians to deal with a hostage situation there's a reason they don't say "find whatever weapon you have and fight back."

Overall, college campuses are areas where I feel like guns are not particularly necessary. You're free to have one off campus based on the laws of your locale. But the "only outlaws will have guns" line is a sidenote. Gun free campuses would not stop a Vtech like massacre, obviously. However nothing would stop that other than full campus lockdown with police or even military presence everywhere. And the perpetrators of such events aren't thinking "Goooooood, they're defenseless because they don't have guns" but instead are generally mentally unstable and could be thinking anything from "Gooooood, now I'll kill the queen of France" to "I'll show them, I'll show them all." But keeping guns off campuses does remove the risks of accidents, the risks of intoxicated idiocy with weapons, the risks of domestic gun violence, and so on.

DrPhil 02-26-2011 12:07 PM

Exactly, Drolefille. The difference between the average person with concealed weapons permits and the VTech shooter is that the latter was a motivated offender. The average law abiding citizen with access to guns is not constantly thinking about, and preparing for, the opportunity to have to use the gun on a person. Those who are are one step away from also being a motivated offender and need to check into a mental health facility.

Those who love guns and are passionate about carrying them have a right to feel that way. But their passion for guns and desire to protect themselves should be relegated to certain establishments. That isn't an unrealistic demand considering the role of guns as an opportunity and facilitating factor for criminality for both motivated offenders and judgment impaired (drugs, alcohol, immaturity, anger in domestic disputes---all of which noncoincidentally are present on college campuses) people who would otherwise be law abiding citizens.

And I'm not surprised that the opinions of those who do not agree with what TX is doing have been reduced to "the opinion of people who have never been violently victimized." That's an assumption. But, I could easily say the same for the people who are excited for this proposed law. The average person who is a fan of this law has never been violently victimized. They think they are protecting themselves and preparing for the low likelihood that they may ever be victimized. At which time they are statistically more likely to either not be able to access/use their gun at all (a gun on the hip isn't the same as a gun in your hands) OR have their own gun used against them. The same goes for people who have guns in their home. This truth may hurt but that doesn't make it an untruth.

AGDee 02-26-2011 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 2033863)
Agreed. We already have the Risk Management Forum peppered with stories of tragic deaths and stupid stunts involving guns in Greek housing. I dread the day when guns are more numerous in student housing. Hormones, alcohol, incompletely matured brains and guns can be a deadly mix.

Totally agree. I'd be more concerned about accidental incidents when people are intoxicated than intentional criminal use.

I also totally agree with Drole's whole post.

I'd also like to add that vigilante justice is a dangerous thing and is often guised as "self defense". If widespread, due process would be out the window and our society would be close to anarchy.

MysticCat 02-26-2011 01:57 PM

Include me in those agreeing with Drolefille.
Quote:

Originally Posted by DGTess (Post 2033854)
In my opinion, it is the duty of the American citizen to, within the confines of the law, be responsible for his own safety. Therefore, one who, within the confines of the law, carries a firearm and uses it in self-defense or in defense of the life of another (phrases which, though while not all-encompassing, generally cover the laws of most states that do not deny the right to self-defense) is taking responsibility.

I failed to respond to this earlier, but I feel like I need to. While i respect, and to some degree, agree with the sentiment behind this, I think this statement is somewhat naive. The desire that everyone take responsibility for his or her own safety or the safety of another is predicated on the assumption that the average person will act responsibly when in a sudden, stressful situation. While I certainly assume that everyone would intend to act responsibly, my life experience leads me to believe that intention (or training for a CHL) isn't enough. The person who can act calmly and responsibly in a situation like this is, I think, the exception rather than the rule, as much as we'd all like to think we'd perform well under pressure. And I think that's especially the case in this context -- college students. That's one reason I find the "if there had only been someone with a gun at Virginia Tech" argument unpersuasive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 2033874)
And I'm not surprised that the opinions of those who do not agree with what TX is doing have been reduced to "the opinion of people who have never been violently victimized." That's an assumption. But, I could easily say the same for the people who are excited for this proposed law. The average person who is a fan of this law has never been violently victimized. They think they are protecting themselves and preparing for the low likelihood that they may ever be victimized. At which time they are statistically more likely to either not be able to access/use their gun at all (a gun on the hip isn't the same as a gun in your hands) OR have their own gun used against them.

Exactly. Playing the "never been violently victimized" is just another way of dismissing an argument rather than engaging it.

And I might as well add that I'm not a fan of public policy debates on the basis of bumper sticker arguments like "if having a gun is a crime, only criminals will have guns," or "guns don't kill people, people kill people." I hear things like that and, fairly or not, tune the speaker because I assume he has nothing substantive to say.

And yes, that holds true for liberal bumper stickers, too.

Drolefille 02-26-2011 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 2033892)
Include me in those agreeing with Drolefille.
I failed to respond to this earlier, but I feel like I need to. While i respect, and to some degree, agree with the sentiment behind this, I think this statement is somewhat naive. The desire that everyone take responsibility for his or her own safety or the safety of another is predicated on the assumption that the average person will act responsibly when in a sudden, stressful situation. While I certainly assume that everyone would intend to act responsibly, my life experience leads me to believe that intention (or training for a CHL) isn't enough. The person who can act calmly and responsibly in a situation like this is, I think, the exception rather than the rule, as much as we'd all like to think we'd perform well under pressure. And I think that's especially the case in this context -- college students. That's one reason I find the "if there had only been someone with a gun at Virginia Tech" argument unpersuasive.

Additionally placing the "duty" for safety in the hands of the victim actually blames the victim for not somehow being prepared enough. If only you'd had a gun you wouldn't have been raped. If only you'd had a gun your house wouldn't have been burglarized. If only you'd had a gun your child would be alive today. Anything that takes responsibility off of the person who commits the crime, and places it on victims of crime is misguided at best and harmful or destructive at worst. Victims already attempt to blame themselves.

As a society we have chosen to have organized police forces to handle matters of safety. Although those forces have flaws, the principle is that they are neutral and that they are highly trained. Argue that the reality does not reflect the principle, but this is the "why" we have police and not vigilante justice.

When it comes down to constitutional rights, I believe my understanding of the 2nd amendment is that it is really reflective of the ideals that a government should not be able to subjugate its people by the simple fact that they have all of the weapons. Ignoring the militia arguments for the moment, this could certainly allow for people to have weapons in their home, but does not, in my opinion, equate to the ability or right to carry weapons on their person at all times.

DrPhil 02-26-2011 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 2033892)
While i respect, and to some degree, agree with the sentiment behind this, I think this statement is somewhat naive. The desire that everyone take responsibility for his or her own safety or the safety of another is predicated on the assumption that the average person will act responsibly when in a sudden, stressful situation. While I certainly assume that everyone would intend to act responsibly, my life experience leads me to believe that intention (or training for a CHL) isn't enough. The person who can act calmly and responsibly in a situation like this is, I think, the exception rather than the rule, as much as we'd all like to think we'd perform well under pressure. And I think that's especially the case in this context -- college students. That's one reason I find the "if there had only been someone with a gun at Virginia Tech" argument unpersuasive.

Yep many offenders are nervous and panicky when they commit crimes, which is one reason why some of them consume alcohol and/or drugs before the commission of a crime. They need to be in an alternate state. If a motivated offender needs to calm his or her nerves to commit a crime, including one where he or she is using a gun and has planned the crime for at least 1 minute (most crimes, including violent crimes involving guns, are not as well planned as the VTech shooting), why do people think that the average law abiding citizen would be a rational Billy Badass just because they have CHL training and a gun?

People have stage fright, panic attacks, nervous disorders, bipolar disorder, medications to stabilize their moods, medications to address depression and other conditions...yet people expect the average citizen (Texas in this instance) to be level headed and properly guided enough to carry guns anyandeverywhere; and be permitted to decipher when the gun should be used in split second decisions just because they have a layperson level of training and perhaps some target practice at a gun range?

On the other side, it has been said that when in a fight for survival, human's animal instincts kick in and it is "do or die." That is wonderful if action is all people expect. That is horrible if the PROPER action is what people expect.

Drolefille 02-26-2011 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 2033904)
Yep many offenders are nervous and panicky when they commit crimes, which is one reason why some of them consume alcohol and/or drugs before the commission of a crime. They need to be in an alternate state. If a motivated offender needs to calm his or her nerves to commit a crime, including one where he or she is using a gun and has planned the crime for at least 1 minute (most crimes, including violent crimes involving guns, are not as well planned as the VTech shooting), why do people think that the average law abiding citizen would be a rational Billy Badass just because they have CHL training and a gun?

People have stage fright, panic attacks, nervous disorders, bipolar disorder, medications to stabilize their moods, medications to address depression and other conditions...yet people expect the average citizen (Texas in this instance) to be level headed and properly guided enough to carry guns anyandeverywhere; and be permitted to decipher when the gun should be used in split second decisions just because they have a layperson level of training and perhaps some target practice at a gun range?

Also capable of retrieving said concealed weapon - for women often in a purse not in a holster - aiming, and firing before the offender notices and can aim and fire.

It surprises me even more when states attempt to or have revoked requiring ANY sort of licensure or training to carry or carry concealed. I've seen the NRA support these sort of measures, and I have to admit, I'm baffled.

AOII Angel 02-26-2011 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 2033904)
Yep many offenders are nervous and panicky when they commit crimes, which is one reason why some of them consume alcohol and/or drugs before the commission of a crime. They need to be in an alternate state. If a motivated offender needs to calm his or her nerves to commit a crime, including one where he or she is using a gun and has planned the crime for at least 1 minute (most crimes, including violent crimes involving guns, are not as well planned as the VTech shooting), why do people think that the average law abiding citizen would be a rational Billy Badass just because they have CHL training and a gun?

People have stage fright, panic attacks, nervous disorders, bipolar disorder, medications to stabilize their moods, medications to address depression and other conditions...yet people expect the average citizen (Texas in this instance) to be level headed and properly guided enough to carry guns anyandeverywhere; and be permitted to decipher when the gun should be used in split second decisions just because they have a layperson level of training and perhaps some target practice at a gun range?

On the other side, it has been said that when in a fight for survival, human's animal instincts kick in and it is "do or die." That is wonderful if action is all people expect. That is horrible if the PROPER action is what people expect.


But then they'll crawl away claiming they were amateurs and can't be expected to know any better.

KSig RC 02-26-2011 02:45 PM

The amount of training the average person receives with a handgun for a CHL or similar program isn't going to turn them into a first responder or anything - the efficacy of guns in the hands of citizens as a preventative measure is NOT a closed issue, and I'm really not convinced that it has a significant preventative or deterrent effect.

However, I am convinced that guns are the leading correlative factor in gun-related accidents, so there's that.

sigmadiva 02-26-2011 02:57 PM

I think an important point being overlooked is the mental health / emotional state of the person with the gun. Clearly in the Columbine and VT shootings the shooters were very emotionally unstable people. They dealt with their emotions by shooting and killing people.


I'd much rather have legislation that improves mental health services than promoting guns on campus.

MysticCat 02-26-2011 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 2033908)
Also capable of retrieving said concealed weapon - for women often in a purse not in a holster - aiming, and firing before the offender notices and can aim and fire.

What? You mean you don't think a woman can get her gun out of her purse, prepare the gun to fire, aim and fire faster than crazyguy with an assault weapon?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sigmadiva (Post 2033921)
I think an important point being overlooked is the mental health / emotional state of the person with the gun. Clearly in the Columbine and VT shootings the shooters were very emotionally unstable people. They dealt with their emotions by shooting and killing people.


I'd much rather have legislation that improves mental health services than promoting guns on campus.

Yes!!

And I think this goes directly to the deterrent effect, at least for the Columbine/VaTech-type incident. We're talking about irrational people to begin with, and often people who intend to die in the incident anyway. They won't be deterred by the fact that others will have guns; more likely, they'll just take that into account and plan accordingly.

Psi U MC Vito 02-26-2011 03:30 PM

And MC & DF raise a good point. Somebody with a concealed handgun has no chance against somebody with a prepared automatic weapon unless they have surprise on their side. And a hell of a lot of luck. What is more likely is panic fire that kills people.

ETA: What I wouldn't mind is if they allowed it so that certain classes of people had the capability to bring concealed weapons onto schools. By this I mean people who are trained to deal with a firearm in a combat situation, so cops, retired cops and military.

Drolefille 02-26-2011 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito (Post 2033931)
And MC raises a good point. Somebody with a concealed handgun has no chance against somebody with a prepare automatic weapon unless they have surprise on their side. And a hell of a lot of luck. What is more likely is panic fire that kills people.

That was MY point, dammit ;)

Psi U MC Vito 02-26-2011 03:37 PM

Better?

Drolefille 02-26-2011 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito (Post 2033937)
Better?

NEVAH! :p

Psi U MC Vito 02-26-2011 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 2033940)
NEVAH! :p

You Fascist Communist you!

Drolefille 02-26-2011 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito (Post 2033947)
You Fascist Communist you!

Socialist Pinko Nazi!

Psi U MC Vito 02-26-2011 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 2033949)
Socialist Pinko Nazi!

Shut up you Capitalist Anarchist Hippie!

Drolefille 02-26-2011 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito (Post 2033951)
Shut up you Capitalist Anarchist Hippie!

LAWYER!

AGDee 02-26-2011 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 2033954)
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...

Drolefille 02-26-2011 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AGDee (Post 2033962)
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 ;)

DGTess 02-27-2011 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito (Post 2033931)
And MC & DF raise a good point. Somebody with a concealed handgun has no chance against somebody with a prepared automatic weapon unless they have surprise on their side. And a hell of a lot of luck. What is more likely is panic fire that kills people.

ETA: What I wouldn't mind is if they allowed it so that certain classes of people had the capability to bring concealed weapons onto schools. By this I mean people who are trained to deal with a firearm in a combat situation, so cops, retired cops and military.

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.

DGTess 02-27-2011 10:43 AM

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.

Drolefille 02-27-2011 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DGTess (Post 2034084)
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.

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.
Quote:

Originally Posted by DGTess (Post 2034085)
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.

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
Quote:

  1. Be 21 years old. (Members and former members of the armed forces must be 18.)
  2. Have a clean criminal history, including military service and recent juvenile records.
  3. Not be under a protective order.
  4. Not be chemically dependent.
  5. Not be of unsound mind.
  6. Not be delinquent in paying fines, fees, child support, etc.
  7. Be eligible to purchase a handgun by completing the NICS check.
  8. Complete required training.
  • Take the training course. It will require 10 to 15 hours, and includes a written examination and a shooting practical. You must pass each with a score of 70% or better.
  • The written exam covers law, nonviolent conflict resolution, and handgun use and storage. It is not mainly about shooting.
  • The shooting practical requires you to fire fifty rounds from a handgun of .32 caliber or greater, including 20 shots at three yards, 20 at seven yards, and 10 a fifteen yards. If you shoot a semiauto you will be able to carry any legal handgun. If you qualify with a revolver you will be able to carry any handgun, including a revolver or derringer, except for a semiauto.

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.

AOII Angel 02-27-2011 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DGTess (Post 2034085)
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.

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.

Drolefille 02-27-2011 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 2034094)
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?

DTD Alum 02-27-2011 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 2034094)
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.

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.

DGTess 02-27-2011 02:02 PM

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.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.