Conference Discusses Concealed-Carry Bills

[greenminer]

Would love to hear some opinion on this.

ntdaily link

Public universities across Texas are facing the prospect of campuses opening up to concealed handguns, as the state Legislature considers a bill to allow concealed handgun license owners to bring their weapons onto campuses.

[Censored by Laurie]

Charles Whitman supports this 100%!!!

[UNTflyer]

Charles Whitman, like many campus mass murderers, prefers an unarmed student body.

[MeanGreenTexan]

Charles Whitman, like many campus mass murderers, prefers an unarmed student body.

After his first shot, Seung-Hui Cho would not have lasted 10 seconds (literally) in any Texas school if this bill was in place.

That said, of course there is some aprehension... Difficult decision for those in the position to make it.

[greenminer]

I heard somewhere that concealed carriers have a lower crime rate than police officers?

[KRAM1]

I can see both sides in this debate. While I am for the right of citizens to bear arms in their self defense, I wonder if this isn't a bit of overreaction. No, not so much by the families of the students, teachers and administrators who have been killed or injured by some "nut case" on campus, but just the fact that so few have been harmed by violence on a college campus...in relative terms that is. Now, it does seem that on-campus violence is increasing, but what about knife attacks, abductions, rapes (date rape), etc. How would this help those situations as they are often committed by someone the victim knows somewhat well.

Another thing I would like to see is the number of illegal shootings and gun violations carried out by those who actually possess a concealed hand gun license. My guess, very very very few. So, if that is the case, and I believe it is, it seems law abiding concealed handgun license folks would be more positive then negative around a campus. On the other hand, part of me says that we should leave the shooting to members of law enforcement. Too bad those that commit such crimes on campus don't hold the same view.

I am definitely "conflicted on this issue", but not on the fact that I believe citizens have the right to legally possess guns in this nation. I doubt that many people realize the number of concealed handguns they have been in close proximity to in the last several years anyway. I do not own a gun at this time and have no desire to do so. But, I have no problem with those who do legally own such.

This really is a tough question for folks like me...on one hand I say "great" arm 'em and let 'em blast away at the bad guys, then another part of me says..."on a college campus?"

Tough call.

[Censored by Laurie]

After his first shot, Seung-Hui Cho would not have lasted 10 seconds (literally) in any Texas school if this bill was in place.

Sorry, man...I think this is such failed logic.

The idea that the addition of more guns into a random, hostile situation somehow keeps down the chances of casualties is, well if any of the Brain Trust had said it, stupid...but I've more respect for you, so I'll just say illogical.

The image I have is of a crowded, auditorium like classroom...take the Lyceum...gunman walks in...200 people start scrambling over one another, knocking each other down for the exit with a complete self-survival/disregard for other's instinct. Now you want to add what...2,3,5 people with concealed weapons attempting to return fire at what I'll assume(hope) is their first human target, a circumstance no one know's exactly how they'll react in when first presented...save perhaps for the gunman who knew premeditatedly he'd be popping off some rounds at people and has already displayed his disregard for human life, and add trying to return fire amongst the pandemonium of fleeing people...and this somehow will create a safer situation?

[Coffee and TV]

Sorry, man...I think this is such failed logic.

The idea that the addition of more guns into a random, hostile situation somehow keeps down the chances of casualties is, well if any of the Brain Trust had said it, stupid...but I've more respect for you, so I'll just say illogical.

The image I have is of a crowded, auditorium like classroom...take the Lyceum...gunman walks in...200 people start scrambling over one another, knocking each other down for the exit with a complete self-survival/disregard for other's instinct. Now you want to add what...2,3,5 people with concealed weapons attempting to return fire at what I'll assume(hope) is their first human target, a circumstance no one know's exactly how they'll react in when first presented...save perhaps for the gunman who knew premeditatedly he'd be popping off some rounds at people and has already displayed his disregard for human life, and add trying to return fire amongst the pandemonium of fleeing people...and this somehow will create a safer situation?

Don't forget that if you're a little late showing up, you might not know which one is the "real" shooter.

[MeanGreenTexan]

Sorry, man...I think this is such failed logic.

The idea that the addition of more guns into a random, hostile situation somehow keeps down the chances of casualties is, well if any of the Brain Trust had said it, stupid...but I've more respect for you, so I'll just say illogical.

The image I have is of a crowded, auditorium like classroom...take the Lyceum...gunman walks in...200 people start scrambling over one another, knocking each other down for the exit with a complete self-survival/disregard for other's instinct. Now you want to add what...2,3,5 people with concealed weapons attempting to return fire at what I'll assume(hope) is their first human target, a circumstance no one know's exactly how they'll react in when first presented...save perhaps for the gunman who knew premeditatedly he'd be popping off some rounds at people and has already displayed his disregard for human life, and add trying to return fire amongst the pandemonium of fleeing people...and this somehow will create a safer situation?

To preface, I do not have a CHL.

I have friends that do, and the process is very rigorous. These same guys are avid hunters and are constantly at the range. If someone walked into the Lyceum and started spraying, guys like my friends could have him down with 1 shot within a few seconds. I believe there are many folks in Texas like this...

...Unfortunately, and this is the cause for aprehension, there are folks who just tote around a sidearm or maybe have a CHL but don't shoot often, who in the same case, would absolutely cause more harm than good. And you're right, there are probably more of these guys than the helpful ones.

I can't say I'm definitively pro or against this legislation just because I know if I could have one of my friends with me when something like this went down, I would be safer, but I don't have an entourage so there would certainly be opportunity for this to happen when they're not around.

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

I can see both sides in this debate. While I am for the right of citizens to bear arms in their self defense, I wonder if this isn't a bit of overreaction. No, not so much by the families of the students, teachers and administrators who have been killed or injured by some "nut case" on campus, but just the fact that so few have been harmed by violence on a college campus...in relative terms that is. Now, it does seem that on-campus violence is increasing, but what about knife attacks, abductions, rapes (date rape), etc. How would this help those situations as they are often committed by someone the victim knows somewhat well.

Another thing I would like to see is the number of illegal shootings and gun violations carried out by those who actually possess a concealed hand gun license. My guess, very very very few. So, if that is the case, and I believe it is, it seems law abiding concealed handgun license folks would be more positive then negative around a campus. On the other hand, part of me says that we should leave the shooting to members of law enforcement. Too bad those that commit such crimes on campus don't hold the same view.

I am definitely "conflicted on this issue", but not on the fact that I believe citizens have the right to legally possess guns in this nation. I doubt that many people realize the number of concealed handguns they have been in close proximity to in the last several years anyway. I do not own a gun at this time and have no desire to do so. But, I have no problem with those who do legally own such.

This really is a tough question for folks like me...on one hand I say "great" arm 'em and let 'em blast away at the bad guys, then another part of me says..."on a college campus?"

Tough call.

This rarely occurs in this forum, but Kram, you and I have very similar thoughts on this issue. I'm all for letting well trained/schooled CHL holders conceal carry, but the idea of having concealed carry on campus doesn't sit well with me (plenty of dillweeds with rage issues running around campus - at least when I was in school).

Edited March 29, 2011 by BeanCounterGrad'03

[Army of Dad]

Sorry, man...I think this is such failed logic.

The idea that the addition of more guns into a random, hostile situation somehow keeps down the chances of casualties is, well if any of the Brain Trust had said it, stupid...but I've more respect for you, so I'll just say illogical.

The image I have is of a crowded, auditorium like classroom...take the Lyceum...gunman walks in...200 people start scrambling over one another, knocking each other down for the exit with a complete self-survival/disregard for other's instinct. Now you want to add what...2,3,5 people with concealed weapons attempting to return fire at what I'll assume(hope) is their first human target, a circumstance no one know's exactly how they'll react in when first presented...save perhaps for the gunman who knew premeditatedly he'd be popping off some rounds at people and has already displayed his disregard for human life, and add trying to return fire amongst the pandemonium of fleeing people...and this somehow will create a safer situation?

Mass shooters are only stopped when they run out of victims, run out of ammunition, or when force is used against them to make them stop. I greatly prefer the third option as the first two always lead to higher body counts and I believe in protecting innocent lives.

Kram is correct, CHL holders commit crimes at a significantly lower rate than cops and I don't hear too much about removing guns carried by law enforcement from campuses.

Just because you don't how you would react in a situation doesn't mean other people haven't given it thought ahead of time and taken the time to examine the possibilities so they will be better prepared should the shit it the fan. Stopping the mass shooter as early as possible is the most advisable course of action. Most police departments no longer wait for SWAT when arriving upon the scene of an active shooter for this reason and I see no reason for you to perpetuate a system that ensures more unarmed victims be made available for slaughter.

If you don't want to carry a gun then don’t carry a gun. Let the people who want to carry an effective means of self defense with them do so and you will probably never know a gun was there unless it was truly needed, and if it was needed then the life it saves may just be yours, or someone precious to you.

[Coffee and TV]

Here's a story about a near tragedy on top of an already horrific enough tragedy that was the Congresswoman Giffords shooting. Granted, the gentleman in this story didn't have adequate training, it brings up a good point about what can happen when more firearms are added to the mix.

http://www.slate.com/id/2280794/

But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!' "

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

.................

The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon. Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot. He was sufficiently convinced of the killer's identity to shove the man into a wall. But Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man. He was, as he acknowledges, "very lucky."

That's what happens when you run with a firearm to a scene of bloody havoc. In the chaos and pressure of the moment, you can shoot the wrong person. Or, by drawing your weapon, you can become the wrong person—a hero mistaken for a second gunman by another would-be hero with a gun. Bang, you're dead. Or worse, bang bang bang bang bang: a firefight among several armed, confused, and innocent people in a crowd. It happens even among trained soldiers. Among civilians, the risk is that much greater.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Coffee and TV

[Green P1]

To preface, I do not have a CHL.

I have friends that do, and the process is very rigorous. These same guys are avid hunters and are constantly at the range. If someone walked into the Lyceum and started spraying, guys like my friends could have him down with 1 shot within a few seconds. I believe there are many folks in Texas like this...

...Unfortunately, and this is the cause for apprehension, there are folks who just tote around a sidearm or maybe have a CHL but don't shoot often, who in the same case, would absolutely cause more harm than good. And you're right, there are probably more of these guys than the helpful ones.

I can't say I'm definitively pro or against this legislation just because I know if I could have one of my friends with me when something like this went down, I would be safer, but I don't have an entourage so there would certainly be opportunity for this to happen when they're not around.

I've got mine, and no it is not.

Individuals wishing to carry onto university grounds need to be made to spend extra money on courses designed specifically around the situations we're trying to avoid. Even then I'm still against it.

[Army of Dad]

Here's a story about a near tragedy on top of an already horrific enough tragedy that was the Congresswoman Giffords shooting. Granted, the gentleman in this story didn't have adequate training, it brings up a good point about what can happen when more firearms are added to the mix.

http://www.slate.com/id/2280794/

So you use an example of two people acting responsibly with guns and being sure of their target as an example of what could go bad? That is an example of the situation being handled correctly.

[Green P1]

Even if allowed, I don't think you're going to see very many students going out and getting their CHL. Most just won't care enough to do so. Know who I do think will take the time to get their CHL? Nutjobs. What used to require meticulous planning can now be accomplished at the drop of a hat. A one day safety course and now they're allowed to move worry free about campus waiting for just the right moment.

I love guns, but rational thought has got to prevail here at some point.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Green P1

[Censored by Laurie]

rational thought has got to prevail here at some point.

Really?

Prove it.

No, seriously...please.

[greenminer]

I do agree P1: getting my CHL was cinch. I went into a day long course with minimal experience handling guns. Passed the test on my first try. Then I went in an hour before the field test the following Monday, practiced with my own pistol for the first time, then passed the test.

But the nutjobs are going to get their guns, regardless of CHLs and laws.

I never understood the CHL restrictions: can't carry on campuses. Can't carry in churches. Can't carry in sporting venues. So basically, we can't carry where the nutjobs target the masses.

[oldguystudent]

A partial list from Fox News of mass shootings in the United States going back to 1991. My not using a calculator math tallies 153 deaths over 20 years. Explicitly not a comprehensive list, and not to be taken lightly, for sure, but if it's a statistic to be alarmed about, then most certainly automobiles should be banned immediately per the NHTSA's own statistics for annual fatal accidents.

I actually post this to refute both sides of this argument. For the pro-gun carriers, the frequency of nutjob shooting sprees is just simply not even a statistical blip on the radar compared to other causes of untimely deaths. For the anti-gun carriers, the frequency of nutjob shooting sprees is just simply not even a statistical blip on the radar compared to other causes of untimely deaths, and allowing CHL holders to carry guns on campus won't likely change that.

My guess (somewhat swayed by my time spent living in LA) is that most shootings in the US are one-on-one affairs between acquaintances, not random acts of fatal violence in public venues.

[Coffee and TV]

So you use an example of two people acting responsibly with guns and being sure of their target as an example of what could go bad? That is an example of the situation being handled correctly.

I used an example where in a split second's time someone made a rational decision. My point is that it just as easily could have gone the other way in that split second.

[GrayEagle]

I'm all for the premise. I do think that each CGH should pass psychological tests and background checks. They should pass tests to show their competency with their weapon. I don't hear of any that go through the proper procedure being perpetrators. Hopefully this program would, at least potentially save lives.

[HoustonEagle]

I've got mine, and no it is not.

Individuals wishing to carry onto university grounds need to be made to spend extra money on courses designed specifically around the situations we're trying to avoid. Even then I'm still against it.

My wife and I both have a CHL. I completely agree with you, not rigorous at all. My wife had probably fired 10 rounds prior to that day. She breezed through the class. Since then she has become proficient but that was on her own accord.

Also, rarely do we carry a firearm. For one it is a pain in the ass. "hey sweetie I am headed for a gallon of milk is my gun showing?" it just does not fit in with day to day life. Second, I am not so paranoid to think every where I go I need protection. That said there are places that I like the ability to have a firearm with me and I choose to do that legally.

I would never take a firearm to a class at UNT. If my wife was still taking night classes at UH I would want her to have one. Not because UH breeds deranged mass murderers. It just happens to be in a pretty bad area of town and parking is on the fringe of campus.

Edited April 1, 2011 by HoustonEagle

[meangreendork]

My wife and I both have a CHL. I completely agree with you, not rigorous at all. My wife had probably fired 10 rounds prior to that day. She breezed through the class. Since then she has become proficient but that was on her own accord.

Also, rarely do we carry a firearm. For one it is a pain in the ass. "hey sweetie I am headed for a gallon of milk is my gun showing?" it just does not fit in with day to day life. Second, I am not so paranoid to think every where I go I need protection. That said there are places that I like the ability to have a firearm with me and I choose to do that legally.

I would never take a firearm to a class at UNT. If my wife was still taking night classes at UH I would want her to have one. Not because UH breeds deranged mass murderers. It just happens to be in a pretty bad area of town and parking is on the fringe of campus.

I'm all for this, if there's a ton of training and checks before someone gets the OK to carry. I'm not talking about some 10 hour course, I'm talking about 6 months of work that has to be done, and most of it in 2 areas: determining when it's the time to shoot and how to do so, and placing the right set of rounds onto the right target. I like the idea of someone being able to protect themselves, but I don't like the idea of additional rounds being thrown around with no real idea of where they're going.

I'm not worried about a nutjob with a CHL rolling through campus. A nutjob will be armed no matter what. I am worried that you have a situation where someone did a CHL over the weekend when something like this really does require months and months of training for both WHEN to shoot and HOW to shoot, so they take their 6 hours of classes and start putting rounds downrange like a bad hollywood movie.

Edited April 4, 2011 by meangreendork

[UNT90]

People who go through the process to obtain a CHL are not going to go out and commit random acts of violence. People who do that are either criminals or mentally unstable, niether of which would invest the time or money to obtain a CHL.

Oldguy is roght on this. Deaths by mass shootings are statistical anomolies. Not really a reason to have a CHL. One on one crime is a far bigger reason to want the CHL

The problem isn't carrying on campus, but in effect not allowing people to carry to and from campus (I would never feel comfortible leaving a gun in a car do to car burglaries). There is no magical gun locker at the university property line.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Charles Whitman, like many campus mass murderers, prefers an unarmed student body.

-- He found out otherwise... students were not carrying handguns on campus but it wasn't long until they were shooting at him with high-powered rifles they had in cars. Wasn't a great idea since those bullets did land somewhere.

-- I am not anti-gun (own them) but I fear having students with concealed guns on campus... I have seen too many drunk, hung-over, drugged, hotheads, and CARELESS students (and other people). It will cause far more deaths than it saves. I had a friend drop one and it fired and killed her.... In 38 years of being on a college campus, I have never known of a gun being fired on a campus I was on.... off campus, yes. I have no objection to students having one in their cars though. [ I even had one in my pickup while in high school and parked it on campus.. legal then... I fed family cattle and needed it for snakes, varmints, etc. ] I have had several students in the classes I teach have guns at times (law officials, and not concealed) and that doesn't bother me at all.

-- Somewhat rural people looks at guns very differently than "city' people do. City people usually think in terms of shooting people... rural people don't much.

..

Edited April 6, 2011 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[meangreendork]

-- He found out otherwise... students were not carrying handguns on campus but it wasn't long until they were shooting at him with high-powered rifles they had in cars. Wasn't a great idea since those bullets did land somewhere.

This. Bullets have to stop somewhere and not everyone will pay attention or even care, CHL license or not. Now, with enough training, they will.