Conference Discusses Concealed-Carry Bills

[greenminer]

I'm sure glad I am not making the decision, nor on campus as a student.

There are other crimes to consider besides mass shootings, such as robbery, assault, etc...I just read a piece that included a photo subtitled with the girls name, that she was speaking in favor of the bills. Her story is that she was sexually assaulted and firearms can deter these sort of predators.

[Green P1]

Maybe we should consider allowing students to hunt mass shooters from helicopters?

[MeanGreenTexan]

Maybe we should consider allowing students to hunt mass shooters from helicopters?

I've got an 8 point mass shooter mounted over my fireplace. A real beauty!

[Censored by Laurie]

I've got an 8 point mass shooter mounted over my fireplace. A real beauty!

I'm personally not a fan of real guns, but the local dive bar just installed "Big Mass Shooter Hunter" next to the "Golden Tee" and let me tell you, it's pretty sweet.

[Rudy]

The nutjobs and criminals will get their guns no matter what. They always have. While the course and the range might be a "cinch" I think where a majority of those we don't want to carry concealed will give up is the wait. I don't know the exact time frame it takes, but if it is anything like the security commission process, the DPS takes a while to get your concealed carry card. 2 or 3 troopers processing the requests and background checks for the entire state.

Another thing to remember. When you fire your weapon, you are responsible for your background. If a bullet misses your target or even goes through the target, you can be held responsible for any damage. Of course, there is more to it than that, but you are responsible for your background. I think that once someone realizes that, alot of these college students will either think twice about carrying, or use extreme caution when drawing their weapon.

[greenminer]

The bill was presented by Wentworth yesterday to the Texas Senate and ultimately withdrawn from vote, postponed until Monday. It's a rare move: most bills are not presented unless the senator feels he will have majority vote.

And the 90 minute debate wasn't very good. Wentworth didn't look prepared at all for the questions that were thrown at him, and many of the points made by the opposition seemed IMO off topic.

Better discussion was made in this winning thread, though there were some notable points:

The Senators acknowledged that most people for this bill are not the ones on campus. In general, students, faculty and staff are of the opposition.

I thought it was a bit contrary of one opposer to insist that universities are the "safest places in America", yet minutes later argue that alcohol abuse is out of control and mixing them with guns is not a good idea.

The bill is discriminatory: Wentworth's proposal currently only applies to public universities. Private institutions do not fall under its umbrella.

Lastly, it does not hold universities responsible for any damages, but does not regulate insurance. The insurance companies have said if this bill passes, they will increase their rates.

[UNT90]

-- 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.

..

Two things. Drunk, hung-over, drugged, hotheads are not the personality types that put forth the effort to obtain a CHL. Even if they did, they most likely would not pass a background check because of the behavior you listed.

And I can't stress enough, if you are going to carry a gun, DO NOT LEAVE IT IN THE CAR! If your goal is to arm a criminal, then by all means, leave it in your car. Just don't be surprised when you return with a broken window and are minus 1 handgun. Please DO NOT DO THIS.

Edited April 8, 2011 by UNT90

[greenminer]

The Texas State Senate - Rodney Ellis Press Releases http://bit.ly/fGIBkf

[Mean Green 93-98]

The Texas State Senate - Rodney Ellis Press Releases http://bit.ly/fGIBkf

When there is an alcohol-related tragedy on campus, you don't hand out 12-packs. Yet, when it comes to gun-related incidents, some seem to think that putting more guns in the mix will lead to a good, rather than bloody outcome.

What a weak parallel. Obviously, we want guns in the hands of law enforcement officials when somebody is shooting up a place, but we don't want law enforcement officials staggering drunk when dealing with drunks.

[UNT90]

What a weak parallel. Obviously, we want guns in the hands of law enforcement officials when somebody is shooting up a place, but we don't want law enforcement officials staggering drunk when dealing with drunks.

Of all the arguments to be made, this is what this moron comes up with?

Shocking that the State of Texas is in so much debt...

[Guest JohnDenver]

Of all the arguments to be made, this is what this moron comes up with?

Shocking that the State of Texas is in so much debt...

Don't you think that if we embraced more alcohol in our families, that we would have more responsible drinking and less binge drinking? Maybe we could require a CHL style course that you have to pass in order to drink. If you have that license, then obviously you are a pro at alcohol and you should be able to have a roadie and/or drink in public?

The more people that drink (and at an earlier age), the more educated we will be about the evils that alcohol can have, so then we can all benefit.

Studies show that to be true, btw.

So in essence, I don't agree with that guy. I think we should throw alcohol at the alcohol problem.

[meanJewGreen]

Regardless of whether you start drinking at 13 or 18 or 21, I guarantee you in situations where binge drinking is common (football games, jimmy buffet concerts, my cousin's wedding, GOVT 1050, spring break, breaking up with a girlfriend, basketball games, NFL sunday tv watching) people will binge drink. Responsibility is thrown out the window. I mean crap, it's an American tradition to drink excessively during these events, so that license would not be necessary

Don't you think that if we embraced more alcohol in our families, that we would have more responsible drinking and less binge drinking? Maybe we could require a CHL style course that you have to pass in order to drink. If you have that license, then obviously you are a pro at alcohol and you should be able to have a roadie and/or drink in public?

The more people that drink (and at an earlier age), the more educated we will be about the evils that alcohol can have, so then we can all benefit.

Studies show that to be true, btw.

So in essence, I don't agree with that guy. I think we should throw alcohol at the alcohol problem.

[Guest JohnDenver]

Regardless of whether you start drinking at 13 or 18 or 21, I guarantee you in situations where binge drinking is common (football games, jimmy buffet concerts, my cousin's wedding, GOVT 1050, spring break, breaking up with a girlfriend, basketball games, NFL sunday tv watching) people will binge drink. Responsibility is thrown out the window. I mean crap, it's an American tradition to drink excessively during these events, so that license would not be necessary

I guess we can agree that there are scenarios where more of something isn't the answer.

Maybe I am back to agreeing with that lawmaker.

[HoustonEagle]

http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/05/07/13/the-six-most-feared-but-least-likely-causes-of-death.htm

I am not making any point with this article. It is just fuel for the discussion.

[UNT90]

Don't you think that if we embraced more alcohol in our families, that we would have more responsible drinking and less binge drinking? Maybe we could require a CHL style course that you have to pass in order to drink. If you have that license, then obviously you are a pro at alcohol and you should be able to have a roadie and/or drink in public?

The more people that drink (and at an earlier age), the more educated we will be about the evils that alcohol can have, so then we can all benefit.

Studies show that to be true, btw.

So in essence, I don't agree with that guy. I think we should throw alcohol at the alcohol problem.

Apple, meet orange.

[Guest JohnDenver]

Apple, meet orange.

Round.

Has a protective skin.

High in vitamin C.

Internal seeds.

Grow on trees.

Edible.

High in potassium.

Juiceable.

Same mean diameter.

Same mean wieght.

Apples and oranges aren't too different. So they are comparable.

Things to have to be identical to be comparable.

Obviously, I get your point. I just don't agree. Oranges and apples are very similar.

[Green P1]

Two things. Drunk, hung-over, drugged, hotheads are not the personality types that put forth the effort to obtain a CHL. Even if they did, they most likely would not pass a background check because of the behavior you listed.

I've never been hotheaded, but to a certain degree you've described me when I attained my CHL. Actually was quite hungover the Saturday I went for my coarse....

And I can't stress enough, if you are going to carry a gun, DO NOT LEAVE IT IN THE CAR! If your goal is to arm a criminal, then by all means, leave it in your car. Just don't be surprised when you return with a broken window and are minus 1 handgun. Please DO NOT DO THIS.

Agreed 100% I think I've carried 3 times in the 4 years I've been licensed to do so. As someone who's had multiple cars broken into this certainly weighs on my mind.

On a side note.... For reasons that I don't entirely remember, my father and I got our I got our CHLs through the State of Utah. I think it has to do with the amount of traveling he does and different states recognizing CHLs of others? I wonder if mine through the State of Utah would allow me to carry on Texas State Campuses?

Edited April 9, 2011 by Green P1

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Two things. Drunk, hung-over, drugged, hotheads are not the personality types that put forth the effort to obtain a CHL. Even if they did, they most likely would not pass a background check because of the behavior you listed.

And I can't stress enough, if you are going to carry a gun, DO NOT LEAVE IT IN THE CAR! If your goal is to arm a criminal, then by all means, leave it in your car. Just don't be surprised when you return with a broken window and are minus 1 handgun. Please DO NOT DO THIS.

Locked in the trunk... ??

[UNT90]

Locked in the trunk... ??

Better, but many vehicles have a passenger compartment trunk release. And what is an SUV driver to do? Just wouldn't feel comfortible leaving it in a vehicle, period.

[Army of Dad]

Better, but many vehicles have a passenger compartment trunk release. And what is an SUV driver to do? Just wouldn't feel comfortible leaving it in a vehicle, period.

In car gun safe.

This is an excellent idea even for the hoplophobes on the board as these will easily hold wallets, cell phones, checkbooks etc...

Oh and by the way, that company has excellent customer service. My wife lost her key and they sent a new lock free of charge.

Edited April 11, 2011 by Army of Dad

[UNT90]

In car gun safe.

This is an excellent idea even for the hoplophobes on the board as these will easily hold wallets, cell phones, checkbooks etc...

Oh and by the way, that company has excellent customer service. My wife lost her key and they sent a new lock free of charge.

Have not seen these before. Pretty cool and a much finer option than leaving in the trunk.

The only downside is this screams "look in here for my valuables." But, if the cable can't be cut easily, then it looks to be worth the investment, and not just for guns, either.

Edited April 11, 2011 by UNT90

[Army of Dad]

Have not seen these before. Pretty cool and a much finer option than leaving in the trunk.

The only downside is this screams "look in here for my valuables." But, if the cable can't be cut easily, then it looks to be worth the investment, and not just for guns, either.

Yeah but it is all about minimizing risk. Most car burglars aren't carrying bolt cutters or something else strong enough to cut the cable. If you slide it under your seat they may never notice it in a quick search of your car and even if they do they are not likely to have the tools to take the safe or break it open.

[greenminer]

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.

This totally makes sense!

Obviously, all airlines can justify removing all emergency life support from their planes. Statistically speaking, the odds of being in a plane crash (not necessarily dying, just being) are 0.00000369799.

...A ridiculous suggestion, right? I think we (gmg.com in general) can agree that there are situations where little-to-no odds do not inherently mean no action is needed, or both sides of an argument are refutable.

I don't know why I am so attached to this debate. Maybe it's because there are flaws in all arguments; everyone is making points for cases unrelated to campus-specific guns. Most of them are arguments for/against guns in general. For example:

You don't like this bill because you think adding more guns to the scene only increases chance for violence and creates additional mayhem (a popular anti-SB354 perspective), well

Ask yourself if this sentiment changes if you're off campus, say at a mall. Does it? Probably not. This argument isn't about guns on campus. You don't want guns around at all. If you are intent on arguing that guns would taint any inherent safety on campus, then - intentional or not - you are implying you have some paranoia off campus...correct? But most of us don't have any said paranoia. So why all this anti-gun sentiment on a campus, where it seems many (if not most) shooting sprees happen (and not the mall)?

Instead of citing the ridiculous odds of being shot on campus during a mass shooting spree, you should ask yourself what are the locations of most shooting sprees? Campuses, churches....any places where there are lots of people in close space. Then wonder why we allow guns at all if we're going to prohibit them in the places where we probably need them most.

Edited April 14, 2011 by greenminer