TX considering concealed guns on campus

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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]

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]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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]

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.