Printable View
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.
Do you even read?Quote:
Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!
Quote:
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.
Good stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
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.
there has been no college that lets firearms on their campus yet, afaik.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
they do not allow drinking on campus btw.
alcohol is the problem, not the car.
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.
Thought this was interesting as well
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/chl-16.pdf
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.Quote:
(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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
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.
@ 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.
and those stupid hillbilly cops (your words) that were already on the way woulda never caught up to him? ain't that right, bigot?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
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.Quote:
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.
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.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis...dInstr2010.pdf
Total number of CHLs in Texas. Just take that as a percentage of the total population to get the desired percentages.
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?
cool thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Slightly related to the subject at hand.Quote:
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.)
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
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?
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.
another thing to consider is what % of students have guns now versus how many would have them if this were to pass.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
just comparing according to this 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.
Its 1.84. On the original calc i did i did not multiply by 100.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Its a 12:1 ratio.
but again there are no gun crimes on Texas campuses now.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
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.
There are no guns on campus now. those CCL stats assume overall data and not environments that are gun free.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
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.
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.
I got my CCL over a weekend. Its like 2 days and $200.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
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.
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