Texas Governor Signs Campus Carry Law, Goes In Effect August 1st
106 replies, posted
i don't even see this as being a need-based decision. if an adult who has gone through the process to get their ccw wants to carry, i believe they should be allowed to. i'd concealed carry if i could, not because i expect to need it but because i'd want to have it in case i do need it. the people who will conceal carry on a college campus would conceal carry practically everywhere else in their life, i don't think people would specifically conceal carry to college because they are afraid of shooters.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49825298]There are people who advocate allowing high school teachers to be armed.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, they say that the only person who can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy is a gun. Therefore by arming everybody good in the country you would eliminate gun violence. We know teachers in the american schools to be good, especially those in the underfunded schools in violent neighbourhoods. By arming them as well, you would eliminate the problem of these shootings and encourage children not to trust anyone at all, so it means they always carry a gun for safety and therefore you would have a safe country, even if education, healthcare, and job prospects get worse.
Pretty neat. It's a shame, but I doubt anything similar will pass in Virginia considering the Virginia Tech shootings are gonna be an easy way to appeal to emotional parents and students to vote against it.
Either way, I don't think this is a solution to anything, nor is it intended to be. Just a way to let people who went through the process to get it keep it on their hip somewhere new, as is their right. I don't see much harm coming from it. It'd be nice to be able to carry once I start going to school again.
This isn't "throwing guns at the issue" this is allowing people who have proven that they are capable of safely handling a firearm to carry them on campuses.
Guns have always made me uncomfortable, so this doesn't exactly make me feel safer as a student.
But I'm not gonna kick a fuss up about it. Responsible people can carry, sure.
I think as long as someone isn't approaching me in an attempt to persuade me to enjoy the presence of guns on campus - because this has happened - I'm fine.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;49825569]This isn't "throwing guns at the issue" this is allowing people who have proven that they are capable of safely handling a firearm to carry them on campuses.[/QUOTE]
yeah, this isn't a solution to any issue and angling it that way is stupid, imo. all it is is expanding rights people already have.
[QUOTE=The golden;49825415]I really wish the US people were more in support of actually addressing the issue which cause this violence to happen instead of just taking the stupid, dangerous, and extremely lazy way of just throwing more guns at it.[/QUOTE]
I really wish anti-gun people didn't assume that any relaxation of illogically strict laws is 'throwing guns at the problem' or the be-all and end-all of social change.
There is [I]nothing[/I] contradictory about allowing people who have already jumped through the myriad of hoops to get a CCL to be able to carry wherever the hell they please while simultaneously taking other steps to address our nation's gun problem.
Concealed carry holders are people that A. already have guns, and B. already have passed all the legal requirements to carry in public, including being of sound mind and having no criminal record. Those aren't people shooting up poor neighborhoods or going on killing sprees. Statistically, there is no support for this idea that allowing guns turns every argument deadly or allowing concealed carry makes campuses look like the OK Corral. CCL holders represent no threat to the public.
You are significantly [I]less[/I] likely to suffer an act of violence at the hands of a CCL holder than at the hands of an off-duty cop. People with CCLs aren't the problem in the slightest, and a restriction on them carrying at colleges accomplishes nothing except ensure that colleges remain a wonderful target for mass shooters.
More rights and freedom should be the default state unless there's very good reason to take it away. In this case, allowing people to legally carry their guns on campus has essentially no negatives while also increasing freedom.
Man i wish ct would do this but our governor is an asshole
America trying to fix gun violence by putting more guns into the public.
Pathetic...
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;49823037]Good for them. They can go find a job somewhere where they will support their baseless ideology.[/QUOTE]
To believe that you have a need to carry a weapon into a university classroom is not only telling of society around that university, but of the very people who think they're all high and mighty for doing it.
Guns do not belong on university property nor in classrooms.
[QUOTE=maxolina;49827509]America trying to fix gun violence by putting more guns into the public.
Pathetic...[/QUOTE]
This is neither a measure to stop gun violence nor a measure to put more guns in public. It's a publicly made decision to allow CCW license holders to carry a gun. I seriously can't see people going "well I better get a psych evaluation, take firearm training, pay a fee and get a background check so I can get a CCW license so I can carry a gun to English 101!"
[editline]27th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Code3Response;49827542]To believe that you have a need to carry a weapon into a university classroom is not only telling of society around that university, but of the very people who think they're all high and mighty for doing it.
Guns do not belong on university property nor in classrooms.[/QUOTE]
I still believe "just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
[QUOTE=Code3Response;49827542]To believe that you have a need to carry a weapon into a university classroom is not only telling of society around that university, but of the very people who think they're all high and mighty for doing it. [/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's reflecting the reality that in a world where mass shootings happen and not every college campus is located in crime-free suburbia, people have a need to protect themselves on and around campus. It's also reflecting the reality that people who have legitimate need to carry off-campus sometimes go on-campus as well. I see no reason why guns are less acceptable on university property than anywhere else in public when carried by licensed individuals.
Oh yeah, aren't you a cop? Feel all 'high and mighty' for carrying a gun?
I'm happy I dont live in that back water state.
[QUOTE=catbarf;49827800]Yeah, it's reflecting the reality that in a world where mass shootings happen and not every college campus is located in crime-free suburbia, people have a need to protect themselves on and around campus. It's also reflecting the reality that people who have legitimate need to carry off-campus sometimes go on-campus as well. I see no reason why guns are less acceptable on university property than anywhere else in public when carried by licensed individuals.
Oh yeah, aren't you a cop? Feel all 'high and mighty' for carrying a gun?[/QUOTE]
When you become a victim of a school shooting then I'll believe that argument. Spoiler: You wont.
[editline]27th February 2016[/editline]
Not sure what you weapon comment meant, but whatever makes you sleep at night.
[QUOTE=Kommodore;49823318]ok then let's put it this way: legally admitting firearms on a university campus is like admitting knives into a courthouse[/QUOTE]
Courthouses have heavy police presence, so many of the arguments for carrying go away. Most people also don't just casually walk into a court, and planning to not have your gun on you at a specific time (the only time you would go to court) is something you can actually feasibly do.
For what it's worth, I don't see why someone bringing a pocket knife into a courthouse is a problem. Yeah there's sensible things like disallowing a machete, but a pocket knife? Could I kill someone with my pocket knife? Sure, I guess. It'd be easier to just bring a cane and club them in the temple a few times. Nobody is going to look at you funny with a walking stick, and it's quite literally a club.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49823004]If they feel that way because of this law, then that's on them. Any student who wanted to bring a gun on campus could have anyway and no one would have known.[/QUOTE]
Every campus I've been too has zero security measures in place (TX/MS.) You could walk in with a literal bazooka on your back and they'd think its' a prop. And not to say that they should pat-down/scan every single student because that'd be dumb and unfeasible.
Saw a guy walking around campus with a katana in-sheath on his back on campus the other day and pretty much no one reacted. We all assumed it was for a play or presentation.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;49827914]When you become a victim of a school shooting then I'll believe that argument. Spoiler: You wont.[/QUOTE]
Love how you don't even pretend to try addressing the point here. Not that you actually could, because he is right, but this is just pathetic. Someone isn't allowed to protect themselves against possible eventualities? They have to experience it first? The fuck kind of thought process leads you to this conclusion?
[QUOTE=Code3Response;49827914]When you become a victim of a school shooting then I'll believe that argument. Spoiler: You wont.[/QUOTE]
Try telling that to the people who were.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;49827999]Love how you don't even pretend to try addressing the point here. Not that you actually could, because he is right, but this is just pathetic. Someone isn't allowed to protect themselves against possible eventualities? They have to experience it first? The fuck kind of thought process leads you to this conclusion?[/QUOTE]
Because its stupid logic used to pass laws. People dont want guns controlled because of bad owners, so would the state kneejerk laws into place because of a few, and statistically improbable, events. Students have a higher chance of being killed getting to campus than they do dying on campus because of a shooter.
I don't see how letting people with concealed carry license use it on campus is a bad thing when schools and colleges are typically prime targets.
Unless you're worried about a liberal arts or women studies major getting their feelings hurt and shooting one of the other students.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;49828048]Because its stupid logic used to pass laws. People dont want guns controlled because of bad owners, so would the state kneejerk laws into place because of a few, and statistically improbable, events. Students have a higher chance of being killed getting to campus than they do dying on campus because of a shooter.[/QUOTE]
None of these are reasons to ban firearms on campus though. Quite the opposite in fact. A law allowing them provides multiple layers of convenience for the law abiding citizens, on top of potential additional security. There's so many reasons why being barred from carrying are pointless annoyances, especially given that there is literally zero security to enforce bans.
How is increasing personal freedom a bad thing in any way? Particularly when you would have a very difficult time proving that there is any real negative effect as a result of it?
[QUOTE=Code3Response;49827914]When you become a victim of a school shooting then I'll believe that argument. Spoiler: You wont.[/QUOTE]
Stop carrying a gun while on duty. When you become a victim of an anti-cop shooting then I'll believe you need it. Spoiler: You won't.
I like how you also leave out the details of crime in and around campuses, or the sheer convenience of not having to disarm, and instead focus on the one statistically rare but undeniably life-changing possibility. Want to give me the stats on how many concealed carriers have committed murder on campus, justifying this fear of firearms on campus? I'll wait.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;49827914]Not sure what you weapon comment meant, but whatever makes you sleep at night.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Code3Response;49827542]To believe that you have a need to carry a weapon into a university classroom is not only telling of society around that university, but of the very people who think they're all high and mighty for doing it. [/QUOTE]
You say people who carry for their own protection 'think they're all high and mighty'. Presumably you carry because you're a cop. Do you think you're all high and mighty? Or is your head jammed so far up your ass that you seriously believe that you need a gun for your protection, but all these people who afraid of the same gangbangers and muggers that you carry a gun to protect yourself against are just 'high and mighty' because they want to carry?
I hear this bullshit 'guns for me, but not for thee' from cops all the time and it's disgusting. God forbid someone wants to defend themselves against the same people that you carry a weapon every day to defend yourself against.
Code3 has a deep history of this kind of behavior in gun threads, way too entrenched in his own beliefs tbh
very little people are going to react appropriately during a shooting. Permit or no permit, most people aren't trained for that sort of thing and they're just going to attribute to the wounded.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;49832026]Permit or no permit, most people aren't trained for that sort of thing and they're just going to attribute to the wounded.[/QUOTE]
Can you give me examples of this happening?
Incidences of CCL holders wounding bystanders during a justified defensive shooting (like a mugging) are extremely rare. Incidences of CCL holders wounding bystanders during a mass shooting are next to impossible to find, because mass shootings almost always occur in places where nobody is allowed to concealed carry.
One relevant incident that comes to mind was the Clackamas mall shooting in Oregon a few years ago, where a CCL holder didn't even have to fire a shot. He drew on the mass shooter, who promptly gave up at gunpoint. The CCL holder exercised caution and restraint and did not fire when the mass shooter stopped presenting a threat. Or there was a public shooting in April last year in Chicago, where a man started firing into a crowd, and was stopped by an Uber driver with a CCL. No bystanders were injured. A CCL holder with a valid permit stopped a mass shooter with no injuries to innocents. What more do you want to dispel this notion that 'they're just going to attribute to the wounded'?
Meanwhile when the NYPD tries to stop a public shooter, [url=http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/25/nypd-shooting-bystander-victims-hit-by-police-gunfire.html]nine bystanders[/url] are shot. I don't want to make any assumptions about your beliefs but if you're one of those 'just wait for the cops to show up, they're trained to handle these situations' folks you've got some research to do.
If you think you're not competent or responsible enough not to shoot innocents with a concealed weapon, that's fine, nobody's suggesting you have an obligation to be armed. It's a big responsibility that many people understandably choose to forgo for a variety of entirely valid reasons. But just because you don't feel like you could handle it doesn't give you license to project that onto licensed carriers who do know what they're doing.
[QUOTE=catbarf;49833996]Can you give me examples of this happening?
Incidences of CCL holders wounding bystanders during a justified defensive shooting (like a mugging) are extremely rare. Incidences of CCL holders wounding bystanders during a mass shooting are next to impossible to find, because mass shootings almost always occur in places where nobody is allowed to concealed carry.
One relevant incident that comes to mind was the Clackamas mall shooting in Oregon a few years ago, where a CCL holder didn't even have to fire a shot. He drew on the mass shooter, who promptly gave up at gunpoint. The CCL holder exercised caution and restraint and did not fire when the mass shooter stopped presenting a threat. Or there was a public shooting in April last year in Chicago, where a man started firing into a crowd, and was stopped by an Uber driver with a CCL. No bystanders were injured. A CCL holder with a valid permit stopped a mass shooter with no injuries to innocents. What more do you want to dispel this notion that 'they're just going to attribute to the wounded'?
Meanwhile when the NYPD tries to stop a public shooter, [url=http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/25/nypd-shooting-bystander-victims-hit-by-police-gunfire.html]nine bystanders[/url] are shot. I don't want to make any assumptions about your beliefs but if you're one of those 'just wait for the cops to show up, they're trained to handle these situations' folks you've got some research to do.
If you think you're not competent or responsible enough not to shoot innocents with a concealed weapon, that's fine, nobody's suggesting you have an obligation to be armed. It's a big responsibility that many people understandably choose to forgo for a variety of entirely valid reasons. But just because you don't feel like you could handle it doesn't give you license to project that onto licensed carriers who do know what they're doing.[/QUOTE]
I didn't imply any of that. I don't have any examples on hand but I do remember reading articles where people tried to stop shooters and just got others hurt. I'm not saying that police are perfect, but I'd rather trust them to stop criminals than a bystander.
I'm all for campus carry, and honestly it's not going to make things any worse. I find it funny that a professor took the time to mention how things need to be changed, because someone could be legally carrying a gun that they had to pass a background check and a test in order to legally carry. To the people who don't like people like me need to realize we are not defective individuals who freak out over little things. If a single percent of gun owners were as bad as we are made out to be, things would be much different. Many people carry for many different reasons. You likely walk by tons of concealed carriers daily without realizing it, and highly unlikely you ever will. That should not scare you. If it does scare you, I'm sorry, but you are paranoid.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;49827914]Not sure what you weapon comment meant, but whatever makes you sleep at night.[/QUOTE]
It's pretty simple, people want the right to the same level of protection you have on a day to day basis, and you claim their "high and mighty" for wanting it.
Maybe you're the high and mighty one casting judgement on people you don't know with circumstances you don't experience?
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;49828444]Code3 has a deep history of this kind of behavior in gun threads, way too entrenched in his own beliefs tbh[/QUOTE]
That comment can be applied to most of the posters on gun-related news threads on FP.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.