Positive article on TX Campus Carry

[Greybeard]

Although it never came to a vote in the House, it's good to hear exactly where our local Rep. stands on the issue.

“When people look past the misinformation on this bill, you see that this is a well thought out piece of legislation that will further enhance public safety and deter against acts of violence on our college campuses. My daughters will be in college one day, and I would not have supported this bill if I thought it was bad policy that would put them or other Texas children in harm's way,” said Representative Parker.

Complete article at http://thenewsconnection.com/article...ommittee/32750

[ImprobableJoe]

I don't buy the rationale, and I don't thing concealed carry on campus necessarily improves safety or deters violence. Less guns among binge-drinking college kids seems like a better idea, versus more guns. YMMV...

[Greybeard]

Evidently a victim of some of the "misinformation" mentioned in Parker's first quote.

[ImprobableJoe]

Evidently a victim of some of the "misinformation" mentioned in Parker's first quote.

How so? I'm all ears.

Your link didn't work for me, BTW.

[Greybeard]

Emotional scare tactics. "Binge drinkers" do not fit that attempted "profile".

“In order to receive a concealed handgun license in Texas, a citizen must be 21 years old, have an impeccable background ... "

Looks like mod got link adjusted to "take". (thanks.)

[ImprobableJoe]

Rude noise - warning sent.

[chemgirlie]

I don't buy the rationale, and I don't thing concealed carry on campus necessarily improves safety or deters violence. Less guns among binge-drinking college kids seems like a better idea, versus more guns.

Most undergrads may be under 21, but there are plenty of those who are not. Most of the staff/faculty, doctoral students, masters students, and a handful of undergrads are over 21.

Again, not convinced that this is any sort of improvement, other than allowing small people to feel big on college campuses.

My campus has become a hotbed for armed robbery in the last year or so with one student (who was 21) brutally murdered less than a mile away from campus. Not all of us are binge drinking idiots. Granted there are bad apples in universities, but this is true outside of campuses too. Some of us just want to defend ourselves from violent crime (particularly when the crime rate skyrockets on a campus).

The idea that less guns equals less crime hasn't been the case in Utah, Blue Ridge Community College, or Colorado State University. There hasn't been a single CCW/university incident at any of those schools.

[ImprobableJoe]

One student killed out of how many? Every death is a tragedy, yet law based on isolated incidents is often bad law.

[chemgirlie]

One student killed out of how many?

Here's the data on my school's crime stats for '07 (starts on page 12).
http://students.wisc.edu/pdf/campus%...%202008-09.pdf
It's not just murder. There's also armed robbery, rape, domestic violence, etc. Most of the increased armed robbery last year occurred to students walking from campus to Greek Row which is adjacent to campus. Keep in mind that not all students are on campus or live there.

Even if CCW didn't help a single person I would still want it. My rights shouldn't by shorted because I want to get an education or work for a university. Legal CCW on campus hasn't hurt a single person (not even a suicide), so I can't see any reason to disallow it.

There were 6 forcible sex offenses on campus (4 of which happened in dorms) and 3 on property next to campus, 5 robberies (1 in the dorms), 9 aggravated assaults (2 in the dorms) and 13 on property next to campus. Would CCW have helped in those situations? Maybe. We'll never know.

[ImprobableJoe]

Even if CCW didn't help a single person I would still want it.

No reason to discuss this any further, is there?

[chemgirlie]

No reason to discuss this any further, is there?

I'm a stickler for all of my rights. Even though I'll probably never have to worry about using my 5A rights to avoid incriminating myself in a trial I still would raise a huge fuss about them ever being taken away. Rights exist not to make people safer (though this particular one has the possibility of doing so), but to facilitate personal liberty.

[langenc]

"Plus, your clarification of shooters being "21 and over" means it eliminates almost everyone who lives on campus."


But it does include ALL who have taken necessary training, been fingerprinted with FBI check, supplied references, paid local fees and any other hoops they can think of. What makes the difference where one lives if they want to defend themselves??

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I don't buy the rationale, and I don't thing concealed carry on campus necessarily improves safety or deters violence.

You don't buy the rationale? I take it you don't approve of concealed carry in general then? Or perhaps you can explain to me how the same person who is OK to carry a firearm in a movie theater, in a restaurant, on a crowded public street, etc. suddenly becomes dangerous when he crosses on to a college campus?

Less guns among binge-drinking college kids

Texas law already prohibits carrying a firearm while intoxicated or carrying a firearm in a bar. There are a lot more drunk college students walking down Greenville in Dallas (where concealed carry would be legal) than there are walking around the SMU campus (where concealed carry is illegal).

Again, not convinced that this is any sort of improvement, other than allowing small people to feel big on college campuses.

Nice ad hominem; but does it really help your argument.

[rampage841512]

Less guns among binge-drinking college kids seems like a better idea, versus more guns.

Yep, cause every binge drinking college kid is going to rush out and buy a gun and there will be blood in the streets. :barf:

I'm a 24 year old man. I work full time as an electrician. I've had a license to carry a concealed pistol since the day I turned twenty-one. I don't binge drink. Oh, and I'm also in college. Any reason you can give me that I should have to leave my pistol in the car when I attend class? And I mean reasons that don't depend on more idiotic generalizations.

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by ImprobableJoe

One student killed out of how many?

If it saves only one child....

Does either of those lines sound familiar?

Originally Posted by ImprobableJoe

Every death is a tragedy, yet law based on isolated incidents is often bad law.

Which is exactly how we have gotten all these anti-gun laws to begin with.

Originally Posted by ImprobableJoe

No reason to discuss this any further, is there?

So... You've slung your anti-gun statements out into the wind (including the general ad hominems, noted by Bart), which have come back to slap you in the face (never spit into the wind), and you're ready to quit?

The argument is not, "Why allow kids to have guns?" the argument is, "Why disallow adults the right to defend themselves?"

Why do you feel it is necessary to deny a basic fundamental right to a specific segment of society?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We have discussed this before. I strongly caution posters - see my editing - that if you resort to insults - you can go elsewhere.

The discussion of whether the characteristics of the student population is a risk increaser is legit but should be based on facts.

Really, truly annoyed. GEM

[raimius]

They are adults with CHL licenses, who have gone through the effort to carry legally. Why should campus property lines change their trustworthiness?

[fisherman66]

Just playing devil's advocate here.

Why should campus property lines change their trustworthiness?

Why should the court house or federal building steps change a citizen's trustworthiness?

Why do car insurance rates drop dramatically for a 25 year old man, but a female gets the rate drop at 21?

[chemgirlie]

Why do car insurance rates drop dramatically for a 25 year old man, but a female gets the rate drop at 21?

They're private companies that provide a voluntary service (you don't have to have a car). As private companies they can do cost vs. benefit analysis to earn a profit. The government isn't a for-profit company providing a voluntary service by not stepping on my rights.

[fisherman66]

As private companies they can do cost vs. benefit analysis to earn a profit. The government isn't a for-profit company providing a voluntary service by not stepping on my rights.

Well, we have age of consent (which is a federal recognition), as well as a minimum age to drive, as well as a minimum age to buy alcohol. Then we have sin tax which is profit used to fund other federal projects. Government is a very lucrative "business" even if they are "not for profit".

BTW, what was the cost/benefit analysis of a 21 YO male driver?