Texas poised to pass bill allowing guns on campus

[djohn2oo8]

AUSTIN, Texas – Texas is preparing to give college students and professors the right to carry guns on campus, adding momentum to a national campaign to open this part of society to firearms.
More than half the members of the Texas House have signed on as co-authors of a measure directing universities to allow concealed handguns.

The Senate passed a similar bill in 2009 and is expected to do so again. Republican Gov. Rick Perry, who sometimes packs a pistol when he jogs, has said he's in favor of the idea.

Texas has become a prime battleground for the issue because of its gun culture and its size, with 38 public universities and more than 500,000 students. It would become the second state, following Utah, to pass such a broad-based law. Colorado gives colleges the option and several have allowed handguns.

Supporters of the legislation argue that gun violence on campuses, such as the mass shootings at Virginia Tech in 2007 and Northern Illinois in 2008, show that the best defense against a gunman is students who can shoot back.




http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110220/ap_on_re_us/us_guns_on_campus

Dumb fucks

[boutons_deux]

I'll drink to that!

[DMX7]

Amazingly stupid republicans just being themselves.

[Yonivore]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110220/ap_on_re_us/us_guns_on_campus

Dumb fucks
Yeah, because criminals have been waiting for this legislation to start committing crimes on campuses around the State.

[boutons_deux]

drunk and/or stressed and/or neurotic teenagers packing heat, a sure-fire combination for student safety.

[Yonivore]

drunk and/or stressed and/or neurotic teenagers packing heat, a sure-fire combination for student safety.
Must be 21 to legally carry.

Must be sober to legally carry.

Next question?

[Bender]

plus you have to go thru a federal & state & local background check to have a permit.

[Yonivore]

plus you have to go thru a federal & state & local background check to have a permit.
And training.

[Oh, Gee!!]

It helped in AZ

[Yonivore]

It helped in AZ
Well, the non sequitur not withstanding, it didn't hurt in Arizona, either.

[Yonivore]

It helped in AZ
Being armed did help in College Park, Ga.

College Student Shoots, Kills Home Invader (http://www.wsbtv.com/news/19365762/detail.html)

[Yonivore]

And, at the Appalachian School of Law (http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/04/when-mass-killers-meet-armed-resistance.html)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yeah, because criminals have been waiting for this legislation to start committing crimes on campuses around the State.

No, but considering the demographics and the lifestyle of most of the people on campus I can understand some trepidation over this.

I am going to guess that there will be more incidents involving shootings on campus than the shooting rampage we had 40 years ago with this in force.

I may be wrong but I just know too well what college kids get like.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Being armed did help in College Park, Ga.

College Student Shoots, Kills Home Invader (http://www.wsbtv.com/news/19365762/detail.html)

that happened in an an apartment (someone's living quarters) and not in the quad.

[Yonivore]

No, but considering the demographics and the lifestyle of most of the people on campus I can understand some trepidation over this.

I am going to guess that there will be more incidents involving shootings on campus than the shooting rampage we had 40 years ago with this in force.

I may be wrong but I just know too well what college kids get like.
I think you are wrong. Where has this occurred in other places where concealed carry is allowed?

If you want to combat something that is causing horrible carnage among our college kids, how 'bout drinking and driving?

Should we revoke all driver licenses of college students out of fear they'll get drunk, act irresponsibly, and get someone killed? Because, that happens a lot more frequently than drunken frat boys grabbing the pistol out of the shoe box in the closet and challenging his brothers to a friendly game of Russian Roulette.

[Yonivore]

that happened in an an apartment (someone's living quarters) and not in the quad.
It was a college party and, as such, more relevant than your Arizona reference.

[DMX7]

And training.

Serious question: Do they actually make you go through training, and if so, what training?

[Yonivore]

Oh, and Oh Gee!!!, I hope you followed the second link on the Appalachian School of Law, there are a few examples, in that article, where mass murderers were stopped - either on school grounds or at school functions - by armed resistance.

Another aspect of that article mentions how the media downplays this aspect of many of the stories.

[MannyIsGod]

drunk and/or stressed and/or neurotic teenagers packing heat, a sure-fire combination for student safety.

These people get CHLs?

[MannyIsGod]

No, but considering the demographics and the lifestyle of most of the people on campus I can understand some trepidation over this.

I am going to guess that there will be more incidents involving shootings on campus than the shooting rampage we had 40 years ago with this in force.

I may be wrong but I just know too well what college kids get like.

Do irresponsible college students get CHLs?

The average crime rate of a CHL holder is far lower than the average person. When people say they're worried about a CHL holder being allowed to carry somewhere will raise the incidence of crime its usually spoken out of ignorance.

[Oh, Gee!!]

And, at the Appalachian School of Law (http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/04/when-mass-killers-meet-armed-resistance.html)

well, if every campus gunman ran into an off-duty sheriff's deputy, police officer, and marine on his way from killing from a professor, they'd all be similarly situated

[Yonivore]

Serious question: Do they actually make you go through training, and if so, what training?
Yes.

Instruction covers use of deadly force, dispute resolution, concealed handgun law, gun safety and storage, selection of a concealed carry gun, legislative changes, handgun accuracy training, and the handgun proficiency test.

[MannyIsGod]

Serious question: Do they actually make you go through training, and if so, what training?

There is a large amount of paperwork to fill out, a background check that is extensive, and training on using a firearm.

[Yonivore]

well, if every campus gunman ran into an off-duty sheriff's deputy, police officer, and marine on his way from killing from a professor, they'd all be similarly situated
Both men were students. I guess I don't get your point.

At one of the other incidents, it was an assistant principal.

[DMX7]

Yes.

Instruction covers use of deadly force, dispute resolution, concealed handgun law, gun safety and storage, selection of a concealed carry gun, legislative changes, handgun accuracy training, and the handgun proficiency test.

Well at least they have something, but everyone driving on their own has passed (hopefully) a test, and that doesn't exactly make me feel safe when I'm on the road.

[MannyIsGod]

Both men were students. I guess I don't get your point.

At one of the other incidents, it was an assistant principal.

Oh Gee's point is that if everyone who was committing these crimes ran into someone trained to use a gun properly - like a CHL holder - these might be the results.

With that in mind I don't know why he's opposed to this law.

[Yonivore]

Well at least they have something, but everyone driving on their own has passed (hopefully) a test, and that doesn't exactly make me feel safe when I'm on the road.
And, yet, you still head out on the road.

[MannyIsGod]

Well at least they have something, but everyone driving on their own has passed (hopefully) a test, and that doesn't exactly make me feel safe when I'm on the road.

If the restrictions to get a drivers license were as strict as those to get a CHL then you'd have less deaths on the road.

So considering cars kill far more people than guns in this nation each year I wonder when we can expect the people who are anti gun to take the on the crusade of removing cars from campus.

[MannyIsGod]

Feelings of opposition to this type of law are as reactionary as they get, IMO. I realize that to most people guns are scary (and there should be an appropriate fear of them of course) but a little education on the subject and perspective can go a long way.

[George Gervin's Afro]

guns on campus? Yeah BABY!

[Vici]

Most of my friends have CHLs and I trust every one of them with their weapon. I personally don't but that's because I don't feel like I need a firearm everywhere I go, just in my house.

However, being a college student is one of the most stressful occupations in the world, especially around finals time. I've seen people throw their books and binders after walking out of a test... now granted that is a far cry from shooting someone but my point is obvious.

My other major concern is who is going to check to make sure the people who have a firearm on campus have a CHL? If no one and the sight of a weapon on campus is commonplace then yes, I do believe criminals are looking forward to this law. How easy would it be for some scumbag to rape a girl at gunpoint on campus during the middle of the night? Again, another fringe example but my point is clear.

And the other obvious concern are parties. I don't even need to come up with a worst case scenario it should be blatantly obvious. My biggest fear would come with drama with relationships + alcohol + knowledge of a nearby weapon... and not necessarily from the CHL holder.

[MannyIsGod]

guns on campus? Yeah BABY!

Can you present your case against it with facts or are you simply going to be reactionary and say "guns are bad"?

[baseline bum]

I have no problem with law-abiding adults packing heat. It's not too big a deal for college campuses IMO though; I think it's much more important that HS teachers should be able to legally carry, assuming the usual CHL standard plus the restriction that the weapon must be kept on one's body and concealed at all times (you don't want students knowing who is packing and where to steal the teacher's gun from). Blaming guns for the crime in this nation is incredibly lazy, and lets our "everything for me, I could give a shit about you" culture off the hook.

[Yonivore]

Most of my friends have CHLs and I trust every one of them with their weapon. I personally don't but that's because I don't feel like I need a firearm everywhere I go, just in my house.

However, being a college student is one of the most stressful occupations in the world, especially around finals time. I've seen people throw their books and binders after walking out of a test... now granted that is a far cry from shooting someone but my point is obvious.

My other major concern is who is going to check to make sure the people who have a firearm on campus have a CHL?
You are required to carry the CHL when you're carrying.


If no one and the sight of a weapon on campus is commonplace then yes, I do believe criminals are looking forward to this law. How easy would it be for some scumbag to rape a girl at gunpoint on campus during the middle of the night?
No more or less easy than it is now.


Again, another fringe example but my point is clear.

And the other obvious concern are parties. I don't even need to come up with a worst case scenario it should be blatantly obvious. My biggest fear would come with drama with relationships + alcohol + knowledge of a nearby weapon... and not necessarily from the CHL holder.
I would wager handgun violence at college parties would not increase.

[johnsmith]

However, being a college student is one of the most stressful occupations in the world,\.

:rollin:rollin:rollin

[baseline bum]

And the other obvious concern are parties. I don't even need to come up with a worst case scenario it should be blatantly obvious. My biggest fear would come with drama with relationships + alcohol + knowledge of a nearby weapon... and not necessarily from the CHL holder.

You can't really have parties on campus though; aren't dorms pretty much alcohol free now? No way you could have ever had parties with alcohol out in the open at my school. You'd really have to scrap private ownerships of guns period to address that situation.

[MannyIsGod]

Most of my friends have CHLs and I trust every one of them with their weapon. I personally don't but that's because I don't feel like I need a firearm everywhere I go, just in my house.

However, being a college student is one of the most stressful occupations in the world, especially around finals time. I've seen people throw their books and binders after walking out of a test... now granted that is a far cry from shooting someone but my point is obvious.


Anecdotes are fine and you yourself acknowledge the two situation are completely different. Can you point to situations where college students who are currently CHL holders have committed crimes due to the increased stress and where those crimes have involved firearms? Furthermore, how do those stats compare to the non CHL holding public?



My other major concern is who is going to check to make sure the people who have a firearm on campus have a CHL? If no one and the sight of a weapon on campus is commonplace then yes, I do believe criminals are looking forward to this law. How easy would it be for some scumbag to rape a girl at gunpoint on campus during the middle of the night? Again, another fringe example but my point is clear.


How is this even a legitimate concern? Has the passing of the CHL laws in Texas made guns commonplace everywhere you go? Has this been an issue anywhere else?

Once again your point is absolutely clear but its also completely invalid. You're only serving to prove my point that the fears to this are completely reactionary and not grounded in reality. I somehow doubt that the passing of this law is going to suddenly increase the applications for CHLs to the point of making guns commonplace on campus



And the other obvious concern are parties. I don't even need to come up with a worst case scenario it should be blatantly obvious. My biggest fear would come with drama with relationships + alcohol + knowledge of a nearby weapon... and not necessarily from the CHL holder.

Once again, how often are CHL holders committing crimes such as your worst case scenario and how does it compare to the general public? We can all imagine a worst case scenario for nearly everything we deal with on a daily basis but if thats the way we governed and lived then we'd never leave the house.

Show that there is a legitimate concern with actual facts please.

[Vici]

You are required to carry the CHL when you're carrying.

Obviously but who is going to check to make sure? Who is to stop the kids who don't have a CHL from bringing guns to class?


No more or less easy than it is now.

Sure it will be. If the sight of weapons on campus is commonplace, would it be easier or harder for a non-CHL carrying criminal to bring a gun to class?



I would wager handgun violence at college parties would not increase.
Maybe, maybe not but why risk it? If there is no need then why bother?

[Vici]

:rollin:rollin:rollin

Went to UTSA huh?

[baseline bum]

Sure it will be. If the sight of weapons on campus is commonplace, would it be easier or harder for a non-CHL carrying criminal to bring a gun to class?


You don't see concealed handguns, which I think is one of the best reasons to support CHL laws. I'd never agree to open carry, since any criminal can assume you're not likely to be packing if he can't see your weapon.

[johnsmith]

Went to UTSA huh?

Never worked for a living huh?

[johnsmith]

However, being a college student is one of the most stressful occupations in the world


LOL

[MannyIsGod]

Obviously but who is going to check to make sure? Who is to stop the kids who don't have a CHL from bringing guns to class?


Whats to stop them now?



Sure it will be. If the sight of weapons on campus is commonplace, would it be easier or harder for a non-CHL carrying criminal to bring a gun to class?


Where the hell is it commonplace to see random citizens carrying guns NOW? How is this even a legitimate concern of yours?

[MannyIsGod]

I don't think Vici understands how concealed handgun laws work.

[ChumpDumper]

Not a big deal either way imo.

[johnsmith]

Whats to stop them now?



Where the hell is it commonplace to see random citizens carrying guns NOW? How is this even a legitimate concern of yours?

I know when I was in school they stopped me a good five or six times a day to check if I had a gun with me.........I mean, I saw so many people with a pistol in tucked into their flip flops, I don't see why they wouldn't.


But then again, I was in Colorado, and it was after Columbine, so you can see why they were so nervous.

[johnsmith]

Especially with college being one of the most stressful "occupations" in the world.

[Vici]

Anecdotes are fine and you yourself acknowledge the two situation are completely different. Can you point to situations where college students who are currently CHL holders have committed crimes due to the increased stress and where those crimes have involved firearms? Furthermore, how do those stats compare to the non CHL holding public?


How or where would I find those stats? You know as well as I do that there isn't something out there where I can find stats like that.



How is this even a legitimate concern? Has the passing of the CHL laws in Texas made guns commonplace everywhere you go? Has this been an issue anywhere else?


Commonplace was bad word usage because truth is it doesn't have to be commonplace. If I see a person carrying a firearm I assume they have a CHL as opposed to not. And why would I think differently? The fact that guns are allowed on campus makes it easier for anyone and everyone to have guns on campus, legal or not.


Once again, how often are CHL holders committing crimes such as your worst case scenario and how does it compare to the general public? We can all imagine a worst case scenario for nearly everything we deal with on a daily basis but if thats the way we governed and lived then we'd never leave the house.

Show that there is a legitimate concern with actual facts please.

The thing is my worst case scenarios aren't far fetched at all. Guns present make violence much easier.

[Oh, Gee!!]

It was a college party and, as such, more relevant than your Arizona reference.

It happened in a private household and not a college campus, so it has nothing to do with campus security. but if you wanna spin, go ahead.

[Vici]

I don't think Vici understands how concealed handgun laws work.

So you're saying carrying a gun is always completely concealed? No bulge under a shirt or belt?

[johnsmith]

So you're saying carrying a gun is always completely concealed? No bulge under a shirt or belt?

Why are you looking at bulges underneath guys belts?

[Vici]

Whats to stop them now?



Where the hell is it commonplace to see random citizens carrying guns NOW? How is this even a legitimate concern of yours?

Maybe I am wrong. Like I said I'm with people who carry all the time and maybe I have an eye for it, so yes I do see people/ notice people on the streets who carry.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Both men were students. I guess I don't get your point.

At one of the other incidents, it was an assistant principal.

and there's still the question of whether the gunmen or the brave marine acted as the hero that day. Seems like an unarmed marine saved the day, but I guess yoni knows best as always.

[MannyIsGod]

How or where would I find those stats? You know as well as I do that there isn't something out there where I can find stats like that.



Wow are you kidding me? You don't think there is a way to track the number of crimes committed by CHL holders and compare it to the overall rate of crimes committed?

You think that if the stats favored them anti gun lobbyists wouldn't be presenting them all over the place? The very fact that they're not presenting data that is incredibly easy to obtain (you can start by looking at how many CHLs are revoked for committing a crime for one) is very telling in and of itself.

Furthermore, are you simply acknowledging that your views are not made based upon facts but rather reactionary?






Commonplace was bad word usage because truth is it doesn't have to be commonplace. If I see a person carrying a firearm I assume they have a CHL as opposed to not. And why would I think differently? The fact that guns are allowed on campus makes it easier for anyone and everyone to have guns on campus, legal or not.


So you currently see a person with a weapon and you automatically assume they're allowed to carry it? What?

Also, if this is already your view then how in the hell would additional legislation help foster a view that YOU ALREADY HAVE?

In any event, I think its safe to say most people do the exact opposite of you and seeing a plain clothes citizen with a gun sets off alarm bells. CHL license don't allow you to walk around brandishing a weapon so this is a completely fabricated fear based in god knows what reality.



The thing is my worst case scenarios aren't far fetched at all. Guns present make violence much easier.

So your first point in this thread is to say that you can't find stats on crimes committed by CHL holders and your last is to say they are more likely to commit violent crimes?

:lmao

You can't make this shit up.

[MannyIsGod]

So you're saying carrying a gun is always completely concealed? No bulge under a shirt or belt?


Maybe I am wrong. Like I said I'm with people who carry all the time and maybe I have an eye for it, so yes I do see people/ notice people on the streets who carry.

I guess that most people see the bulge in my pants and just assume I'm carrying.

Its true that I'm packing heat but its not a gun.

This is the weirdest fear I've ever heard of in a gun debate, to be quite honest. I think its safe to say that the CHL law has not people somehow ok with the open brandishing of a weapon.

[MannyIsGod]

I know its really hard to find statistics like this but here are some gun control statistics I found using the hard to imagine phrase "concealed handgun crime statistics" into google.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#right-to-carry

[Oh, Gee!!]

Oh, and Oh Gee!!!, I hope you followed the second link on the Appalachian School of Law, there are a few examples, in that article, where mass murderers were stopped - either on school grounds or at school functions - by armed resistance.

Another aspect of that article mentions how the media downplays this aspect of many of the stories.

in each of these stories the mass murderer mass murdered with a handgun and was subdued by off-duty cops.

[MannyIsGod]

Texas itself keeps statistics of convictions by CHL holders.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

[Yonivore]

and there's still the question of whether the gunmen or the brave marine acted as the hero that day. Seems like an unarmed marine saved the day, but I guess yoni knows best as always.
The gunman was approached by the unarmed student only after he dropped his weapon after being confronted by the two armed students who both trained their weapons on him and demanded his drop his. When the unarmed student approached, the gunman attacked him and the other two re-holstered and help subdue the gunman.

I know, you probably got your facts from one of the 88 (out of 90) stories that neglected to mention that fact.


He and Gross both approached Odighizuwa at the same time from different directions. Both were pointing their weapons at him. Bridges yelled for Odighizuwa to drop his weapon. When the shooter realized they had the drop on him he threw his weapon down. A third student, unarmed, Ted Besen, approached the killer and was physically attacked.

But Odighizuwa was now disarmed. The three students were able to restrain him and held him for the police. Odighizuwa is now in prison for the murders he committed. His killing spree ended when he faced two students with weapons. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

You wouldn’t know much about that though. Do you wonder why? The media, though it widely reported the attack left out the fact that Bridges and Gross were armed. Most simply reported that the gunman was jumped and subdued by other students. That two of those students were now armed didn’t get a mention.

James Eaves-Johnson wrote about this fact one week later in The Daily Iowan [story no longer available or I would link it]. He wrote: “A Lexus-Nexis search revealed 88 stories on the topic, of which only two mentioned that either Bridges or Gross was armed.” This 2002 article noted “This was a very public shooting with a lot of media coverage.” But the media left out information showing how two students with firearms ended the killing spree.

[Vici]

Wow are you kidding me? You don't think there is a way to track the number of crimes committed by CHL holders and compare it to the overall rate of crimes committed?[quote]

You said CHL members who are students. If you know where then present then yourself and prove me wrong.

[quote] You think that if the stats favored them anti gun lobbyists wouldn't be presenting them all over the place? The very fact that they're not presenting data that is incredibly easy to obtain (you can start by looking at how many CHLs are revoked for committing a crime for one) is very telling in and of itself.

I can't speak for the anti-gun lobbyists or pretend to know what they do or don't present. I'm not one of them by any means.


Furthermore, are you simply acknowledging that your views are not made based upon facts but rather reactionary?

Sure. Where are the facts that prove allowing guns on campus makes everyone safer? If you have them please prove me wrong.



So you currently see a person with a weapon and you automatically assume they're allowed to carry it? What?

We are in Texas. Lots of people have weapons. It's not that uncommon at all.


In any event, I think its safe to say most people do the exact opposite of you and seeing a plain clothes citizen with a gun sets off alarm bells. CHL license don't allow you to walk around brandishing a weapon so this is a completely fabricated fear based in god knows what reality.

Who said anything about brandishing a weapon?


So your first point in this thread is to say that you can't find stats on crimes committed by CHL holders and your last is to say they are more likely to commit violent crimes?

You're making this all up at this point. Where did I say CHL holders are more likely to commit crimes?

[Yonivore]

in each of these stories the mass murderer mass murdered with a handgun and was subdued by off-duty cops.
Assistant Principal Myrick isn't an off-duty cop.

[Spurminator]

In theory, I think it's the right thing to do, but it's basically a formality. I would guess there are very few college students will take advantage of the legal opportunity to carry a CHL who weren't already carrying one around before.

For a lot of students, finding out a peer is packing heat is still going to stigmatize them to some extent on a lot of campuses. I don't see it exactly becoming a trend...

[ChumpDumper]

Texas itself keeps statistics of convictions by CHL holders.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htmSome odd stats in there.

[Vici]

Texas itself keeps statistics of convictions by CHL holders.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

That's actually a really interesting website. It doesn't say anything about demographics but it's still interesting.

[Vici]

Some odd stats in there.

Ya, the Child sexual assault was kinda odd.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Assistant Principal Myrick isn't an off-duty cop.

okay, but the shooter had already killed three and injured seven and was in his vehicle headed away from campus.

[MannyIsGod]

You said CHL members who are students. If you know where then present then yourself and prove me wrong.


I've given you links above. You could take the amount of total crimes comitted by CHL holders without even subtracting those who are not students and compare it to the average crime rate of students and its going to be much lower.

Do you understand that you don't even need to remove the non students for my point to be made? You could look at the crimes committed by all CHL holders and compare them to the average age breakdown of students and its not even close.



I can't speak for the anti-gun lobbyists or pretend to know what they do or don't present. I'm not one of them by any means.



Sure. Where are the facts that prove allowing guns on campus makes everyone safer? If you have them please prove me wrong.


You want me to prove that something that currently is not legal is better with statistics?

Jesus Christ.

Aside from that, why does that even need to be proven? The burden of proof here is to prove that it would be a more dangerous situation. Whether or not it makes thing safer or maintains status quo is irrelevant because if it does not make things any more dangerous then there is no reason to make it illegal.



We are in Texas. Lots of people have weapons. It's not that uncommon at all.



What? Yes, it is.



Who said anything about brandishing a weapon?


Unlike you most people do not equate bulges with guns. The only way the average person is going to know a CHL holder is carrying a gun near them is by openly brandishing that weapon. You don't seem to understand this.



You're making this all up at this point. Where did I say CHL holders are more likely to commit crimes?

You don't even realize the argument that you put forward. You said that violent acts are made more prevalent by guns in a thread about CHL holders. If you're not referring to CHL holders in your comment then your comment is completely irrelevant because this law only applies to CHL holders.

[MannyIsGod]

In theory, I think it's the right thing to do, but it's basically a formality. I would guess there are very few college students will take advantage of the legal opportunity to carry a CHL who weren't already carrying one around before.

For a lot of students, finding out a peer is packing heat is still going to stigmatize them to some extent on a lot of campuses. I don't see it exactly becoming a trend...

I think you underestimate how closely CHL holders follow the law. I really doubt there are a large number of CHL holders illegally carrying on campus and the numbers on convictions back me up.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I guess we should take a wait and see attitude on this topic. hopefully we'll never have to see. (btw: I doubt it becomes law.)

[MannyIsGod]

That's actually a really interesting website. It doesn't say anything about demographics but it's still interesting.

It doen't need to. The number of violations for CHL holders is already so damn small breaking them up further is absolutely statistically meaningless.

[Yonivore]

okay, but the shooter had already killed three and injured seven and was in his vehicle headed away from campus.
To another school to do the same thing all over again...

[MannyIsGod]

Some odd stats in there.

Which ones struck you as odd?

[Oh, Gee!!]

To another school to do the same thing all over again...

sure.

[MannyIsGod]

CHL holders comprise about 1.86% of the Texas Population. That number alone destroys so many of Vici's arguments, but if they commit crimes at the rate of the rest of the population they should compromise 1.86 of convictions. They fail to even come close in every category with the exception of convictions of breaking a law that requires you be a CHL holder in the first place.

[Spurminator]

I think you underestimate how closely CHL holders follow the law. I really doubt there are a large number of CHL holders illegally carrying on campus and the numbers on convictions back me up.

I don't think there are a large number either, I'm just saying I don't think there will be a lot of them when it's legal either.

[MannyIsGod]

I think you're right about that. As it is with CHL holders comprising such a small amount of the population its going to be very rare. Additionally, its not like you're going to see a ton of frat boys run out and get licensed because they can now take a gun to Freshman Comp.

[Yonivore]

sure.
Do you even read?


His plan, authorities subsequently learned, was to drive to nearby Pearl Junior High School and shoot more kids before police could show up.

But Myrick foiled that plan. He saw the killer fleeing the campus and positioned himself to point a gun at the windshield. Woodham, seeing the gun pointed at his head, crashed the car.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I know its really hard to find statistics like this but here are some gun control statistics I found using the hard to imagine phrase "concealed handgun crime statistics" into google.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#right-to-carry

Good stuff.

the stat I find most telling is that the age group 15-24 had the highest incidence of firearm accidents over 60% higher than the next highest group.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think you are wrong. Where has this occurred in other places where concealed carry is allowed?

If you want to combat something that is causing horrible carnage among our college kids, how 'bout drinking and driving?

Should we revoke all driver licenses of college students out of fear they'll get drunk, act irresponsibly, and get someone killed? Because, that happens a lot more frequently than drunken frat boys grabbing the pistol out of the shoe box in the closet and challenging his brothers to a friendly game of Russian Roulette.

there has been no college that lets firearms on their campus yet, afaik.

they do not allow drinking on campus btw.

alcohol is the problem, not the car.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, out of those 15-24 only the 21-24 can carry and as you can tell by the rest of the stats I posted that segment with CHLs is committing far fewer of those acts than those who don't have a CHL.

Nothing that I've found even remotely point to CHL holders being more likely to commit crimes than those without.

[Vici]

Thought this was interesting as well

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/chl-16.pdf


(g) Notwithstanding Subsection (a)(2), a person who is at least 18
years of age but not yet 21 years of age is eligible for a license to carry
a concealed handgun if the person:
(1) is a member or veteran of the United States armed forces, including
a member or veteran of the reserves or national guard;
(2) was discharged under honorable conditions, if discharged
from the United States armed forces, reserves, or national guard; and
(3) meets the other eligibility requirements of Subsection (a) except
for the minimum age required by federal law to purchase a handgun.
(h) The issuance of a license to carry a concealed handgun to a
person eligible under Subsection (g) does not affect the person's ability
to purchase a handgun or ammunition under federal law.

As far as the debate with Manny, you're missing my point entirely which is we don't know what to expect from young adults with guns on college because there are no records of it. Having guns present around kids isn't always the best idea. You are absolutely right that CHL holders are responsible but there is going to be variations of responsibility based on demographics. We won't know if it's a bad idea until it's too late which will hopefully never happen. Until I hear about how a kid with his CHL saved lives I don't see a need for a kid to have a gun on campus. If the school isn't safe that's on the university to increase their security.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, out of those 15-24 only the 21-24 can carry and as you can tell by the rest of the stats I posted that segment with CHLs is committing far fewer of those acts than those who don't have a CHL.

Nothing that I've found even remotely point to CHL holders being more likely to commit crimes than those without.

there is no demographic evidence and i did not see the percentage of texas residents who have their CCL. its kinda hard to evaluate without that context.

young men act really stupid all too often. any actuarial information will tell you that straight out. i have no issue with the CCL on its own merits I just do not like the idea of it on campus prima facia.

the only age demographic information presented so far bears that out.

[MannyIsGod]

@ Vici

There is absolutely nothing to support it being a bad idea based on criminal statistics of CHL holders. Thats what YOU don't get. You've got it in your idea that kids with guns is a bad idea completely ignoring that we're not talking about all kids but CHL holders. No one i talking about letting Joe Frat run around doing a keg stand and brandishing a glock.

Its about CHL holders and there is no segment of CHL holders that is as prone to criminal acts as the general population so there's no reason to suspect an increased likely hood of criminal acts on campus from allowing CHL holders to exercise their rights.

[Oh, Gee!!]

To another school to do the same thing all over again...

and those stupid hillbilly cops (your words) that were already on the way woulda never caught up to him? ain't that right, bigot?

[MannyIsGod]

there is no demographic evidence and i did not see the percentage of texas residents who have their CCL. its kinda hard to evaluate without that context.



That information is easily located on that site. Its less than 2% of the population. The number of total CHL holder convictions on its own is less than the average by such a sizable margin that breaking it down by demographics will yield statistically irrelevant results.



young men act really stupid all too often. any actuarial information will tell you that straight out. i have no issue with the CCL on its own merits I just do not like the idea of it on campus prima facia.

the only age demographic information presented so far bears that out.

CHL holders that are young men do not act stupidly. Thats the point. What young men do outside of those who are CHL holders is completely irrelevant since no one is saying to allow everyone to carry.

You could compare the total number of CHL convictions (in other words assume every CHL holder who commits a crime is a young man) to those of young men and they are so much lower its amazing.

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/PDF/ActLicAndInstr/ActiveLicandInstr2010.pdf

Total number of CHLs in Texas. Just take that as a percentage of the total population to get the desired percentages.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

i just looked up the population of texas and its 24.7 million so half a percent would be about 120,000 people. Are there that many CCL?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/PDF/ActLicAndInstr/ActiveLicandInstr2010.pdf

Total number of CHLs in Texas. Just take that as a percentage of the total population to get the desired percentages.

cool thanks.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm now too lazy to find numbers, but I think its safe to say that young men commit a higher percentage of the crime than the rest of the population so if CHL holders can't even meet the numbers of the general pop its going to be impossible to meet those of average young men.

[Sisk]

As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the Chicago, IL Gun Ban, I offer you another stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine) that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society.

"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable..

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

So in other words, the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.


By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

Slightly related to the subject at hand.

Where I go to school there have been people handing out flyers in favor of the law. I personally am in support of the proposition.

I'm in favor of the law mainly because, if someone knows they will not have free reign to attack anyone in everyone around them (due to the others not being armed) they're much less likely to initiate the attack in the first place. Consequences are often brought well after the incident, unless the attack ends in suicide, so these people start the attacks with consequences in the back of their minds. If they know someone will be shooting back then that is the ultimate deterrent.

If someone is going to bring a gun to a college to kill people, they're going to do it. Why not have students be able to defend themselves? Of course this argument is at the most basic level of debate, but it's that simple.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That information is easily located on that site. Its less than 2% of the population. The number of total CHL holder convictions on its own is less than the average by such a sizable margin that breaking it down by demographics will yield statistically irrelevant results.



CHL holders that are young men do not act stupidly. Thats the point. What young men do outside of those who are CHL holders is completely irrelevant since no one is saying to allow everyone to carry.

You could compare the total number of CHL convictions (in other words assume every CHL holder who commits a crime is a young man) to those of young men and they are so much lower its amazing.

again you have no demographic information and you have no idea what the demographic information is. its possible that a large or small percentage falls into that age group and they have a disproportionate amount of the crimes.

there are 460k people with CCL in texas, with 25 million people. thats 1.84% of the population. According to that data .151% of convictions are from people with ccl in 2009.

.46/25 *100 = 1.84%. Its about a 12:1 ratio.

And really that is not how i would weigh it. it stands to reason that more guns being on campus would lead to more gun crimes on campus by virtue of there being about 2% of students with guns if the statistics play out.

i really need to think about this some more because i really do not have an adequate view of the risk assessment.

How many shooters have there been on campus since the UT shooter in the 60s for example?

[MannyIsGod]

Its not .02% of the population dude, its around 2%. Big ass difference there. A group that comprises 1.84% of the population but only commits .1541% of total convictions is obviously far less likely to commit crimes.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm now too lazy to find numbers, but I think its safe to say that young men commit a higher percentage of the crime than the rest of the population so if CHL holders can't even meet the numbers of the general pop its going to be impossible to meet those of average young men.

another thing to consider is what % of students have guns now versus how many would have them if this were to pass.

just comparing according to this (http://www.utexas.edu/police/reports/statistics/crimestats2010.pdf) there were no assaults with firearms last year at UT. There were only three weapons violations and its uncertain if those were guns or not.

In 2009 there was only one weapons violations and again no assaults with a firearm.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Its not .02% of the population dude, its around 2%. Big ass difference there. A group that comprises 1.84% of the population but only commits .1541% of total convictions is obviously far less likely to commit crimes.

Its 1.84. On the original calc i did i did not multiply by 100.

Its a 12:1 ratio.

but again there are no gun crimes on Texas campuses now.

[MannyIsGod]

I also have a big issue with your contention that more guns on campus would equal more crime. CHL licenses have proven to have the exact opposite effect overall.

[MannyIsGod]

another thing to consider is what % of students have guns now versus how many would have them if this were to pass.

just comparing according to this (http://www.utexas.edu/police/reports/statistics/crimestats2010.pdf) there were no assaults with firearms last year at UT. There were only three weapons violations and its uncertain if those were guns or not.

In 2009 there was only one weapons violations and again no assaults with a firearm.

As I've said in this thread, I've got no reason to believe this would cause a large increase in CHL licensing. There's a reason only a small percentage of the population currently chooses to carry and thats not because you can't carry on campus. Its because the process is a pain in the ass and most people don't care about it.

A college student would have to come up with the money, fill out the paperwork, and undergo the training. The young men you mention who are so prone to crime aren't the type to do these things as much as an older person is.

I'm almost positive if we look at a demographic of CHL holders they are disproportionaly older.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I also have a big issue with your contention that more guns on campus would equal more crime. CHL licenses have proven to have the exact opposite effect overall.

There are no guns on campus now. those CCL stats assume overall data and not environments that are gun free.

do you disagree that passing this would result in more guns being on campus?

Really i think it should be up to campus police to decide this.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh I don't disagree that this would increase guns on campus. I disagree that this increase in guns on campus is going to lead to an increase in crime.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

As I've said in this thread, I've got no reason to believe this would cause a large increase in CHL licensing. There's a reason only a small percentage of the population currently chooses to carry and thats not because you can't carry on campus. Its because the process is a pain in the ass and most people don't care about it.

A college student would have to come up with the money, fill out the paperwork, and undergo the training. The young men you mention who are so prone to crime aren't the type to do these things as much as an older person is.

I'm almost positive if we look at a demographic of CHL holders they are disproportionaly older.

I got my CCL over a weekend. Its like 2 days and $200.

i also would like to know how many of those crimes listed were from first offenders versus CCL carriers because obviously repeat offenders are not a good comparison.

I am not anti gun. I have about 6 of them. I just do not see the point to bringing them onto campus.

[djohn2oo8]

So what happens if a gunman opens fire with a handgun, 10 people pull out their guns, and no one knows where or who to shoot? Campus police should be left in charge, not reckless students. Then you have to think about the lunatics who have racism issues. Just not going to be a good situation

[ElNono]

So what happens if a gunman opens fire with a handgun, 10 people pull out their guns, and no one knows where or who to shoot?

Easy. You let Diane Sawyer spin the aftermath into some story about the heroes of the day...

[MannyIsGod]

So what happens if a gunman opens fire with a handgun, 10 people pull out their guns, and no one knows where or who to shoot? Campus police should be left in charge, not reckless students. Then you have to think about the lunatics who have racism issues. Just not going to be a good situation

Its like you just didn't bother to read anything posted in this thread.

I hear lunatics who have racism issues apply for a CHL in order to carry out their racist agendas. If denied the CHL then all is well and they don't act on their lunatic elements.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Its like you just didn't bother to read anything posted in this thread.

I hear lunatics who have racism issues apply for a CHL in order to carry out their racist agendas. If denied the CHL then all is well and they don't act on their lunatic elements.

Rerring to my earlier post regarding more guns on campus... The more guns on a campus increases the odds of a gun getting in the wrong hands.. less guns less odds..

[MannyIsGod]

By your logic CHL laws inherently lead to more gun crimes yet that is not the case. Why?

[George Gervin's Afro]

By your logic CHL laws inherently lead to more gun crimes yet that is not the case. Why?

my logic is simple. more guns the on campus increases the odds of the wrong person getting a hold of it. Less guns lesser odds of it falling into the wrong hands.This has nothing to do with the chl. I'm cool with the chl.

[Yonivore]

my logic is simple. more guns the on campus increases the odds of the wrong person getting a hold of it. Less guns lesser odds of it falling into the wrong hands.This has nothing to do with the chl. I'm cool with the chl.
By that logic, more guns on campus increase the odds of a rampage being stopped, fewer guns decrease them.

More guns on campus increase the odds of criminals not carrying out their crimes, fewer guns decrease them.

Why do you think the incidence of gun crimes are higher in places with the strictest gun control laws? Criminals love a work environment that guarantees they will not be confronted.

[MannyIsGod]

my logic is simple. more guns the on campus increases the odds of the wrong person getting a hold of it. Less guns lesser odds of it falling into the wrong hands.This has nothing to do with the chl. I'm cool with the chl.

This has everything to do with the CHL considering we're talking about CHL holders. Your logic is faulty. Where have CHL laws ended up with more guns entering the wrong hands?

Can you prove that statement?

[Jt.ONE]

Republican Gov. Rick Perry, who sometimes packs a pistol when he jogs, has said he's in favor of the idea.



:lol

[diego]

i dont really care either way about the guns on campus, I dont think it will make much difference.

but reading this thread got me thinking about a couple things:

1) a lot of people are equating more guns = safer place and vice versa. I dont agree with either, and for the same reasons. The amount of guns is a trivial factor next to the quality of the justice system, the police system, and all the other particulars of the individuals involved and the culture at large. The guns themselves are objects and without taking into account who is using them and where, they are practically irrelevant.

2) Some of the arguments for gun rights strike me as similar to drug rights- basically, that its better to be licensed than black market, and that legalization will undermine criminality. And it feels as if those that back drug rights dismiss those arguments from the gun rights group, and vice versa. :lol

[ploto]

Glad my kid will be at a private university that I assume is still able to disallow guns on campus and in dorms.

[Sisk]

Republican Gov. Rick Perry, who sometimes packs a pistol when he jogs, has said he's in favor of the idea.



:lol


And he's had to use the weapon to protect himself in the past.

[Sisk]

Glad my kid will be at a private university that I assume is still able to disallow guns on campus and in dorms.

Thank goodness. That way, no attacker will ever bring a gun on campus.. because they're banned and all.

Massacre avoided!

:rolleyes

[George Gervin's Afro]

By that logic, more guns on campus increase the odds of a rampage being stopped, fewer guns decrease them.

More guns on campus increase the odds of criminals not carrying out their crimes, fewer guns decrease them.

Why do you think the incidence of gun crimes are higher in places with the strictest gun control laws? Criminals love a work environment that guarantees they will not be confronted.

the odds of a rampage occuring is .00001% more guns on capus increase thge odds of one getting mishandled..

Let's keep this real simple..

1 gun on campus . the odds of it falling into the wrong hands is ?

100 guns on campus the odds are higher that one of those falls into ther wrong hands..

The odds are in my favor that I am not going to be involved in a shooting rampage..


Sort of like guns in homes.. no guns zero chance of a gun accident

1 gun in a home and the chances of an acident are much higher


it's pretty simple..


no prescription drugs in a home no chance of accidental overdose

prescriptions drugs in home..chances of accidental overdose go up..

[Yonivore]

i dont really care either way about the guns on campus, I dont think it will make much difference.

but reading this thread got me thinking about a couple things:

1) a lot of people are equating more guns = safer place and vice versa. I dont agree with either, and for the same reasons. The amount of guns is a trivial factor next to the quality of the justice system, the police system, and all the other particulars of the individuals involved and the culture at large. The guns themselves are objects and without taking into account who is using them and where, they are practically irrelevant.
I think the evidence is clear that states with conceal carry and open carry rights have a lower incidence of gun violence.


2) Some of the arguments for gun rights strike me as similar to drug rights- basically, that its better to be licensed than black market, and that legalization will undermine criminality. And it feels as if those that back drug rights dismiss those arguments from the gun rights group, and vice versa. :lol
I think Prohibition made the argument, quite dramatically, criminalizing a vice only leads to things worse than the use of that vice.

The militarization of our police, no-knock searches, and these para-military roving bands called "Drug Task Forces" are anathema to our freedoms and are wreaking havoc on the sanctity of our most cherished possessions, our homes and our lives.

[Winehole23]

The militarization of our police, no-knock searches, and these para-military roving bands called "Drug Task Forces" are anathema to our freedoms and are wreaking havoc on the sanctity of our most cherished possessions, our homes and our lives.Agreed without reservation.

The competing interest is the state's interest in maintaining/promoting public safety. State power usually wins that dispute.

Fortunately, you see more and more TX counties disbanding drug task forces and not applying for Byrne grants, precisely because of the the legal liabilities and bad press they sometimes give rise to.

[Marcus Bryant]

I think the evidence is clear that states with conceal carry and open carry rights have a lower incidence of gun violence.

I think Prohibition made the argument, quite dramatically, criminalizing a vice only leads to things worse than the use of that vice.

The militarization of our police, no-knock searches, and these para-military roving bands called "Drug Task Forces" are anathema to our freedoms and are wreaking havoc on the sanctity of our most cherished possessions, our homes and our lives.

:toast

[Marcus Bryant]

Agreed without reservation.

The competing interest is the state's interest in maintaining/promoting public safety. State power usually wins that dispute.

Fortunately, you see more and more TX counties disbanding drug task forces and not applying for Byrne grants, precisely because of the the legal liabilities and bad press they sometimes give rise to.


The American tradeoff seems to be maximum individual liberty combined with maximum law enforcement and punishment.

Do we have the social capacity to move to an end of prohibition (not of marijuana, but of harder drugs - cocaine, heroin, etc)?

[EVAY]

The American tradeoff seems to be maximum individual liberty combined with maximum law enforcement and punishment.

Do we have the social capacity to move to an end of prohibition (not of marijuana, but of harder drugs - cocaine, heroin, etc)?

We do not.

For the same reasons discussed in the thread regarding the contributions of Robert Nisbet.

[EVAY]

The American tradeoff seems to be maximum individual liberty combined with maximum law enforcement and punishment.

Do we have the social capacity to move to an end of prohibition (not of marijuana, but of harder drugs - cocaine, heroin, etc)?

The suggestion you are making would have to be based on reason.

What in current American politics could make anyone imagine that rationality has much to do with anything?

[Marcus Bryant]

The suggestion you are making would have to be based on reason.

What in current American politics could make anyone imagine that rationality has much to do with anything?

True. Our political discourse revolves around a sparse, binary model. It's either/or. One or zero.

That prohibition has serious costs and drawbacks is ignored by those who view drugs as 'evil.' Of course, that is not to say this notion is unserious or an attempt to impose some kind of outdated moral code on the rest of society. Addiction to hard drugs can ruin a life and create plenty of misery for others.

That legalization might not be all roses cannot be accepted. Prohibition is the proximate cause of most of the problems with addiction. Remove the lure of its illegality and the prevalence of addiction will recede within society. I think this is a bit optimistic. One can certainly understand the desire to reduce the militaristic nature of narcotics enforcement. One can believe that by and large most know that harder drugs create much worse addiction problems than marijuana use.

Perfect liberty requires a different kind of social society than the one we have today, in my opinion. The impact of alcohol use is instructive for what we might face with the eventual legalization of hard drugs. Less widespread, but considerably destructive without a strong social fabric. Still, the expansion of state and local law enforcement to keep it illegal is costly in terms of resources and community life.

[EVAY]

True.

Perfect liberty requires a different kind of social society than the one we have today, in my opinion. The impact of alcohol use is instructive for what we might face with the eventual legalization of hard drugs. Less widespread, but considerably destructive without a strong social fabric. Still, the expansion of state and local law enforcement to keep it illegal is costly in terms of resources and community life.

Indeed. Perfect liberty requires more than any human society has ever achieved if history serves. Nonetheless, your point that the societal resources that have to be devoted to the continuance of the prohibition is likely more than would be the case in trying to serve the needs of a legal but addicted group of people is well made. And you are right that removing the prohibition against alcohol didn't remove the societal costs of alcoholics. Clearly, legalizing harder drugs than marijuana would be accompanied by a host of societal costs and problems. Whether or not those costs and problems would outweigh the costs and problems of maintaining the prohibition is an empirical question.

[Marcus Bryant]

I'm inclined to favor repeal. I want to, that is. The bigotry of low expectations holds when it comes to public policy, as in if you look at your fellow men and women as a bunch of barely human children and you design a system geared towards such a group then you'll probably end up with a populace full of barely human child-like adults. OTOH, if you expect that most people are mature enough to take care of themselves and their loved ones, and you design a system of governance to fit that, then you end up with a mature society.

IMO, in many respects the former is what we have today. A transition to the latter will not happen overnight without some rather significant upheaval.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

One thing I see very lacking in this discussion is the take of campus security on this issue. On an inital round of google searches they seem mum on the issue.

I need to look deeper.

[Marcus Bryant]

Glad my kid will be at a private university that I assume is still able to disallow guns on campus and in dorms.

Yeah, that will stop someone who feels like bringing a firearm on campus.

[Thompson]

I'm inclined to favor repeal. I want to, that is. The bigotry of low expectations holds when it comes to public policy, as in if you look at your fellow men and women as a bunch of barely human children and you design a system geared towards such a group then you'll probably end up with a populace full of barely human child-like adults. OTOH, if you expect that most people are mature enough to take care of themselves and their loved ones, and you design a system of governance to fit that, then you end up with a mature society.

IMO, in many respects the former is what we have today. A transition to the latter will not happen overnight without some rather significant upheaval.

If you favor repeal, what do you propose to do with those who choose to destroy their lives and health through drug use? Should an already massively indebted government pay for their healthcare, or do we watch them die in the street?

[Marcus Bryant]

If you favor repeal, what do you propose to do with those who choose to destroy their lives and health through drug use? Should an already massively indebted government pay for their healthcare, or do we watch them die in the street?

Hence the apprehension.

[Marcus Bryant]

Some people will do the hard stuff regardless if it's illegal or not. I guess the greatest penalty remains the fact that it will destroy your life. Of course, we are uncomfortable with letting anyone suffer, regardless if it is self-inflicted or not. Though public assistance to drug users will be killed quick. Yet, the costs of law enforcement related to drug law enforcement in terms of $ and liberty is not cheap.

I don't see any easy answers. Do you?

[ploto]

Yeah, that will stop someone who feels like bringing a firearm on campus.

I am not that naive, but I do know that allowing it means more guns. Period.

[Thompson]

No. I was just wondering what your position was. I'm not really a libertarian, although I do wonder how such things would play out.

If it was legalized, I would be opposed to racking up even more debt to provide 'free' healthcare for drug addicts. I don't think the country/politicians have the guts to just stand there and watch people die though.

Even if they did, you'd probably have to worry about other factors: would traffic accident fatalities rise significantly? Even though the costs would drop as it was no longer illegal, would addicts nonetheless not be able to maintain jobs and resort to theft/crime to obtain funds for their habit? On and on.

The Chinese were worried at one point a few hundred years ago that rampant opium use would destroy an entire generation. I don't know what would happen if the floodgates were opened, but I tend to think unless the nation is prepared to stand and watch them die in the streets (and serve as a warning to others), we'll end up providing "free" healthcare to drug addicts, and a decadent America would collapse at an accelerated rate.

Maybe they should try it out on a smaller scale (state level - give California what they want). California wouldn't let them die though; people would have less reason to avoid drugs, California would beg the federal government for bailout money, and we'd end up paying for it anyway.

[The Reckoning]

im glad concerned parents like ploto are willing to fork up 40,000+ a year so that their kids will be protected from gun laws

[Vici]

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/208079.pdf

This says a lot of things but one important one is that most illegal guns are stolen. Having guns on campus means a higher probability of a stolen gun on campus.

[The Reckoning]

its funny because everyones acting like students + faculty will all flock to get their concealed licenses just so they can bring guns on campus.

wake up people.

theyre proposing this legislation so youll talk about all this shit about bringing guns on campuses, which will amount to nothing in the long run, instead of talking about the real issue - them axing huge chunks off higher education funding.

wake up.

now private corporations will take the opportunity to fund the missing budget from colleges, and youll see campuses (and whats going on inside classrooms) dramatically change.

[The Reckoning]

and i go to a school where someone brought an sks/ak47 and blew their brains out all over the library earlier this school year. nobody on campus is talking about it. nobody is talking about gun laws. everyones hella more worried about funding, and rightfully so.

thats why my university is so great :makemyday

the odds of somebody having a gun on them at that instant, and being able to respond right then without second thought, are fairly low. more people die driving to school than getting shot at school, anyway.

[ploto]

instead of talking about the real issue - them axing huge chunks off higher education funding...

Higher education accounts for 12.5% of the state budget but 40% of the proposed cuts.

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/208079.pdf

This says a lot of things but one important one is that most illegal guns are stolen. Having guns on campus means a higher probability of a stolen gun on campus.


What?

Dude no wonder you think college is a "high stress job".

Good lord.