Texas poised to pass bill allowing guns on campus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

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..

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

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?

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



:lol

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jt.ONE

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ploto

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diego

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

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)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVAY

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ploto

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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?