Lift Ban On Concealed Handguns On Campus?

[UNT90]

I have read some of your arguments, I will watch some of your videos, and I will respect your point of view. But for christ's sake DO NOT expect me to watch anything by that fraud John Stossel. Or the lunatic that is Alan Keyes.

What about the citizen/crime victim that is Suzanna Hupp?

[greenminer]

Don't mean to pick on you, but you are a good example of someone with no experience with guns having preconveived notions about firearm ownership. I can't blame you, as these notions have been pounded into your head by the anti-firearm media for the last 20 years.

Your half way there. Come on over.

Who said no experience? I've been to a range, shown how to handle, and fired several different types.

I also played competitive Counter Strike and got an IM invite for CAL season 8. We beat a CAL-M on de_train in a scrimmage, for Pete's sake!

n00b.

[Guest JohnDenver]

Who said no experience? I've been to a range, shown how to handle, and fired several different types.

I also played competitive Counter Strike and got an IM invite for CAL season 8. We beat a CAL-M on de_train in a scrimmage, for Pete's sake!

n00b.

How dare you bring up de_train. Makes me miss my younger days in college..

[Rudy]

I also keep seeing "education" being tossed around as justification...that guns are safe with proper education. That may be well and true, but with good drivers education cars are safe, yet there are hundreds of accidents everyday...with good sex education bumping uglies is safe, yet STDs and fun babies abound. Cerebus, you seem very educated about your firearm...and if I saw you at a tailgate and you showed me you glock I probably wouldn't be terribly freaked out. But, most people aren't you...putting a gun in the hand of a small town, meth-mouthed 22 year old, and giving him a liscense for said weapon...which for many arrogantly equates to expertice...that does freak me out.

I dont think anyone has ever said that education will be the end all to any accidents. Education is the best way to prevent accidents, whether you are talking about firearms, cars, sex, alcohol, drugs, etc. There is always the risk, but education is the best prevention.

Anyone who has a history of drugs will most likely have a criminal record, therefore unable to legally own a firearm. If they dont have one yet, they will, and when they do, their weapons will be taken from them.

Just a question. How many of those opposed to gun ownership or concealed carry laws have any experience with firearms (been to a firearms familiarity class, firearms range session, have actually fired a handgun or other firearm, or actually own a weapon)?

Just about any street cop (not a police chief...read-politician, and certainly not some FBI Dweeb) will tell you that he favors conceal carry. They will also tell you that they can't guarentee your safety.

I personally believe it is fun to go out and just shoot at a target, cans, bottles, etc. I was at the Range on Tuesday and an older gentleman had a replica Confederate Army officer's pistol. You loaded the black powder, wadding, and 44 caliber ball, turned the chamber, and then used the attached level to press it all down, and you add the blasting cap. When you fired it, it had the huge cloud of smoke. It was really cool to see it done just like it was during the Civil War. And he actually let me shoot a couple of rounds. Very cool stuff.

I believe that if you can legally carry or own a firearm, then its your right to do so if you choose. All I ask is that if I stop you, approach you, or enter your home, you keep your hands visible and let me know that you have a firearm (or ANY weapon) for my safety, and consequently, your safety. If you are a subject or a suspect, I will pat you down and find it. If you try to pull a weapon on me, that is your mistake. And there is no one thing or person that can absolutely guarantee your safety. However certain things can greatly improve it.

good stuff in here.

I never liked guns. I always thought a ban would be the only way to deal with it, and was completely on CBL's side of things...until my 'rents and sister experienced a home invasion. I still don't like them, but I have an appreciation for the need.

During the fall of 2007, there was a string of home invasions in Northeast Dallas. 2 of those happened in the Village while i was working for the Village Patrol. In one of them, a couple of suspects forced their way into a couples apartment as they came home late one morning. The story given to us by the male resident is that while they were being held at gunpoint one of the suspects took his eyes off of the couple. The resident was able to reach for a rifle and the suspects fled. The resident claimed to have fired a round into the suspects vehicle as they fled. Now, we have our doubt about the validity of the statement, but it does reflect two aruments.

1. Many career criminals have been interviewed on camera and asked if they know or think a victim has a firearm accessible, does that affect whether or not they will target them. Im not going to say that every criminal fears a gun owning victim, however, every account and interview I have heard stated that the criminal either will pick a different target or flat out fear the gun owning possible victim.

This also leads to the second argument

2. Many criminals (certainly not all, and I will never incinuate all) who use guns in the commission of a crime really have no intention or at least have a hesitation of using the firearm. They want to use the weapon to scare their victim into compliance. I believe they know and understand that if a victim has a firearm, they know how to use it and they will very likely not hesitate to use it to defend their property or life. The criminal doesnt want to die. What is the point of risking your life when there is a chance that you wont get to enjoy what you have illegally acquired. Also, I doubt the average street thug, which is what we are pretty much all referring to here, can shoot a 250 out of 250 on the range. They dont go out to practice their shooting. However, the law abiding gun owning civilian does. They go to the range, or out to the country and shoot their firearm. They know and understand their weapons. And the street thug knows this. Whereas an average criminal goes and purchases a Hi Point firearm for $100 and is not familar with how that weapon and how it shoots before going out to commit a crime, the gun owning citizen knows, shoots, and considers his $800 H&K USP an extension of themself.

Oh, and guns dont kill people, husbands that come home early do.

[UNT90]

Who said no experience? I've been to a range, shown how to handle, and fired several different types.

I also played competitive Counter Strike and got an IM invite for CAL season 8. We beat a CAL-M on de_train in a scrimmage, for Pete's sake!n00b.

Exactly what language are you speaking?? English first!!!

[UNT90]

Lazer sights website, for those interested.

http://www.opticsplanet.net/crimson-trace-laser-sights.html

[hickoryhouse]

only $279 for my Browning? I don't think that is to bad...

[GreenMachine]

Anyone who has a history of drugs will most likely have a criminal record

Come on now, we both went to NT, we KNOW how prevalent drugs are on/around campus. When I was there, I would have made Cheech and Chong proud and I don't have a criminal record

[UNT90]

Come on now, we both went to NT, we KNOW how prevalent drugs are on/around campus. When I was there, I would have made Cheech and Chong proud and I don't have a criminal record

YET

That website is less expensive than Cheaper than Dirt on those laser sights. Already priced it. Just FYI

[UNT90]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/hostage_shooting

Defensless, they were.

[UNTflyer]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/hostage_shooting

Defensless, they were.

Once again, this nullifies the argument posed in the student senate the other night. if there is a mass shooting, police policy is to contain the situation... not rescue hostages or take out the shooter as soon as possible.

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

[UNT90]

Once again, this nullifies the argument posed in the student senate the other night. if there is a mass shooting, police policy is to contain the situation... not rescue hostages or take out the shooter as soon as possible.

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

Actually, police are not trained to contain the situation anymore, they are trained to confront the assailant as quickly as possible. That change in training happened shortly after Columbine.

[GreenBat]

Actually, police are not trained to contain the situation anymore, they are trained to confront the assailant as quickly as possible. That change in training happened shortly after Columbine.

And you know this how? Are you one of emmitt and rudy's brothers in blue?

[UNTflyer]

And you know this how? Are you one of emmitt and rudy's brothers in blue?

And if it is true, they are doing a piss poor job. Today's mass shooting went on for hours.

[UNT90]

And if it is true, they are doing a piss poor job. Today's mass shooting went on for hours.

Where do you find that the shooting "went on for hours". I don't see that anywhere. The search probably did "go on for hours" to make sure there wasn't a second or third gunman, or even to make sure that he was the gunman.

[Coffee and TV]

And if it is true, they are doing a piss poor job. Today's mass shooting went on for hours.

No it didn't. It was a quick mass shooting that turned into a hostage situation. And these people were taking citizenship tests, they couldn't legally carry a weapon anyways.

[UNT90]

No it didn't. It was a quick mass shooting that turned into a hostage situation. And these people were taking citizenship tests, they couldn't legally carry a weapon anyways.

And now they are dead. They were sooo close to having that right. Wonder if they had it in the county from which they came?

Sounds to me like it was a quick mass killing and then a quick suicide. Shooters like this rarely take hostages. The point is to kill as many people as possible before being killed/killing yourself. Damn video games.

Edited April 4, 2009 by UNT90

[GreenBat]

And now they are dead. They were sooo close to having that right. Wonder if they had it in the county from which they came?

Sounds to me like it was a quick mass killing and then a quick suicide. Shooters like this rarely take hostages. The point is to kill as many people as possible before being killed/killing yourself. Damn video games.

I blame the music he listened to. Damn radio.

[UNTflyer]

No it didn't. It was a quick mass shooting that turned into a hostage situation. And these people were taking citizenship tests, they couldn't legally carry a weapon anyways.

You're right, it didn't. We only saw what was on TV most of the day, I'm just now sitting down to read the story... but this jumped out at me:

"Police heard no gunfire after they arrived but waited for about an hour before entering the building to make sure it was safe for officers."

To Protect and Serve.

[UNTflyer]

And these people were taking citizenship tests, they couldn't legally carry a weapon anyways.

U.S. citizenship is not required to own a firearm in this country. It is also not a requirement to obtain a CHL in Texas. While a CHL in New York is much more difficult to obtain, U.S. citizenship is not a requirement.

[UNT90]

U.S. citizenship is not required to own a firearm in this country. It is also not a requirement to obtain a CHL in Texas. While a CHL in New York is much more difficult to obtain, U.S. citizenship is not a requirement.

I wonder, since this was a federal building, I'll bet that CHL holders would have been prevented from carryong handguns anyway, much like on college campus (to get back to the original point of the thread). Very interesting.

[UNT90]

waited for about an hour before entering the building to make sure it was safe for officers."

To Protect and Serve.

They are either 8 years behind the curve in training, which I highly doubt, or there were facts that they knew about that situation that kept them from immediately entering the building (the shooter was isolated away from any civilians is the most logical explanation).

Nice quip on the end. Tell me, would you have the courage to charge into a building where an active shooter was steadily killing fellow citizens and confront that shooter? This is what officers are trained to do every day. I would suggest that you go down to your local police department and participate in thier civilian ride along program. It may open your eyes as to what the profession is all about.

[KRAM1]

I have read some of your arguments, I will watch some of your videos, and I will respect your point of view. But for christ's sake DO NOT expect me to watch anything by that fraud John Stossel. Or the lunatic that is Alan Keyes.

Always nice to see folks willing to at least hear what the other side has to say. "Fraud" and "lunatic" are always great ways to make certain folks know one is willing to have an open mind about it.

[UNTflyer]

Nice quip on the end. Tell me, would you have the courage to charge into a building where an active shooter was steadily killing fellow citizens and confront that shooter? This is what officers are trained to do every day. I would suggest that you go down to your local police department and participate in thier civilian ride along program. It may open your eyes as to what the profession is all about.

I'm still pissed about the Student Senate inviting a campus police officer, who seems to have convinced a bunch of naive students that the campus police will be there to save the day!

When has a mass shooting ended in the police charging in and taking the shooter into custody? They tend to end with the shooter using his last bullet to blow his head off while the police wait outside until it is safe. I'm not questioning their courage, I'm questioning their policy and their public relations when they tell citizens they have no need for a weapon.

[UNT90]

I'm still pissed about the Student Senate inviting a campus police officer, who seems to have convinced a bunch of naive students that the campus police will be there to save the day!

When has a mass shooting ended in the police charging in and taking the shooter into custody? They tend to end with the shooter using his last bullet to blow his head off while the police wait outside until it is safe. I'm not questioning their courage, I'm questioning their policy and their public relations when they tell citizens they have no need for a weapon.

The campus officer was just doing what was odered by his chief, who's boss is the President of the university. Politics.

A mass shooting will very rarely end with police taking anyone into custody, because the shooters have already decided that they are going to die, either by thier own hand or by the police. You have no argument from me about police not being able to respond in time to stop the shooter from killing people, hence I favor CHL's and the right to carry on campus. BUT, police are trained to enter and confront the shooter as quickly as possible once arriving on scene, problem is, by that point, it is usually too late.

A great demonstration would have been to have a friend run into the room and tag (with his hand) as many people as possible, then simply run back out. Then stand up and say "It can happen that quickly". It that doesn't drive home the point, I don't know what would.