TX considering concealed guns on campus

[MysticCat]

Include me in those agreeing with Drolefille.

Originally Posted by DGTess

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.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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?

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

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]

Better?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Better?

NEVAH!

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

NEVAH!

You Fascist Communist you!

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

You Fascist Communist you!

Socialist Pinko Nazi!

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Socialist Pinko Nazi!

Shut up you Capitalist Anarchist Hippie!