Quote:
Originally Posted by DGTess
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
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:
- Be 21 years old. (Members and former members of the armed forces must be 18.)
- Have a clean criminal history, including military service and recent juvenile records.
- Not be under a protective order.
- Not be chemically dependent.
- Not be of unsound mind.
- Not be delinquent in paying fines, fees, child support, etc.
- Be eligible to purchase a handgun by completing the NICS check.
- 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.