Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Concealed carry permit holders already have permission to carry concealed in Texas so I fail to see how letting them carry on campus at state universities makes anyone less safe. The same people who can carry elsewhere can now carry at school and concealed carry permit holders have, over time, proven themselves to be one of the least dangerous and most law abiding subsets of people. As to the motivations of people deciding to carry concealed, what does it matter? I don't care why law abiding people decide to exercise their rights in lawful ways, it's a free country and the motivations of others is of no concern to me.

In the interests of dragging this away from the gun argument brick wall, I just went back and reread the original story.

"Take it and come" is a much better slogan than "come and take it", not gonna lie.

 Spinner wrote:
In the interests of dragging this away from the gun argument brick wall, I just went back and reread the original story.

"Take it and come" is a much better slogan than "come and take it", not gonna lie.

I posted the article much more for this hilarity than CC on campus issue.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 skyth wrote:

Feeling the 'need' to carry a gun with you in the normal course of life is irrational fear based behavior. The same as feeling the need to wear a flotation device while swimming.

Using safety equipment in general could be described as "fear based behavior." Wearing your seatbelt while driving, wearing a life preserver while on a boat, keeping a fire extinguisher in the kitchen, so on and so forth. It could also be described as prudent.

Your repeated attempts to denigrate people who take steps to improve their safety are very inappropriate, ignoring the fact that there are over a million violent crimes committed in the US each year. If you don't want to carry a gun, then don't, but don't insult people who do. It falls under the category of "stop doing what I don't like!" and is childish.

Safety equipment used when there is a reasonable chance of needing it isn't fear based. It is, however when the threat isn-t reasonable.

Needing a weapon in the normal course of your day is not a reasonable percaution, especially when evasion is the safer method in general.

So go get your CCW and cary if you want. I'm not going to stop you. However I will have a lower opinion of you. It proves to me that you are either unreasonably paranoid or a gung ho bully.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:

 skyth wrote:
In the FAR remote chance that you are in that situation (about the same chance of losing conciousness while swimming) your average person could run away or hide. If you are a sudden life or death situation, you don't have time to pull your gun and if you try you make yourself a target. Barring that, you have time to evade and hide. An 'average' person would likely freeze up trying to figure out what to do especially if given more choices.

You're one of those people who believes sub 1.5 second draw & shoot times are a myth, aren't you?

Possible by a trained person? Sure.

Done in a high stress situation by an average person? That's a lot more questionable.

 skyth wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 skyth wrote:

Feeling the 'need' to carry a gun with you in the normal course of life is irrational fear based behavior. The same as feeling the need to wear a flotation device while swimming.

Using safety equipment in general could be described as "fear based behavior." Wearing your seatbelt while driving, wearing a life preserver while on a boat, keeping a fire extinguisher in the kitchen, so on and so forth. It could also be described as prudent.

Your repeated attempts to denigrate people who take steps to improve their safety are very inappropriate, ignoring the fact that there are over a million violent crimes committed in the US each year. If you don't want to carry a gun, then don't, but don't insult people who do. It falls under the category of "stop doing what I don't like!" and is childish.

Safety equipment used when there is a reasonable chance of needing it isn't fear based. It is, however when the threat isn-t reasonable.

Needing a weapon in the normal course of your day is not a reasonable percaution, especially when evasion is the safer method in general.

The point of a CCW isnt to go hunting the bad guy. In many cases you will still go for evasion, the firearm can aid in that. If, for example, I were stuck in an active shooter situation, I would flee, the gun is there in case I were cornered, or to toss a couple suppressing shots if he peeked around a wall so I could run away.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:

 skyth wrote:
In the FAR remote chance that you are in that situation (about the same chance of losing conciousness while swimming) your average person could run away or hide. If you are a sudden life or death situation, you don't have time to pull your gun and if you try you make yourself a target. Barring that, you have time to evade and hide. An 'average' person would likely freeze up trying to figure out what to do especially if given more choices.

You're one of those people who believes sub 1.5 second draw & shoot times are a myth, aren't you?

Possible by a trained person? Sure.

Done in a high stress situation by an average person? That's a lot more questionable.

Possible by a trained person? Sure.

Done in a high stress situation by an average person? That's a lot more questionable.

You are now aware that one of the forms submitted with the Texas CHL, specifically CHL-100, contains in big bold letters: CERTIFICATE OF TRAINING which includes where, when, and what licensed instructor evaluated your ability to at least hit the broad side of a barn while inside it. Should the individual feel that this instruction is not sufficient there are many, many private shooting schools and instructors in the US now, and let's be honest...if you can afford to shoot more, who wouldnt?

However, I have the distinct impression that when you say "A trained person" what you really mean is more along the lines of "Agent of the state" ...regardless of anyone`s ability to actually shoot or deal with pressure. Am I wrong?

BossJakadakk wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:
So, in your opinion, it is necessary to allow concealed carry in campus? The very places where people gather to study, and have nothing to do with protecting your home by the way, and where you absolutely don't need to bring more means for violence inside?

And you don't understand some young people don't feel exactly safe while knowing one of their comrades next to them may be carrying a hidden weapon and use it whenever he wants, just because he snaps or something?

Because, let's be clear, some of the most tragic events made in American schools were made by students bringing concealed weapons inside and fire at will on their unaware comrades before usually dying.

And now, there is a law allowing them to do so? You really don't see where is the problem in that?

If you think the intent is helping "western heroes ready to kill the crazy ones with their holy guns", well to me, that just makes easier the job of criminals and would be murderers to do their job. Because they will shoot first and use surprise to their full advantage.

You really don't see where is the danger in that? To me, it's quite understandable these students and teachers would protest. Calling it "stupidity" is, IMHO, the true mark of irresponsibility.

There are people who don't feel safe with opposite sex in their bathroom or locker room either. Should we bar them from going into those places even if they say they identify as the opposite sex?
Your position seems a lot like that. People exericising their rights make others uncomfortable, so we should abridge those rights.

I found myself thinking the same thing as I read this thread. It hasn't explicitly been said here, but I really feel like many people who would be against guns because of fear are also people who would call fear of rape in bathrooms ridiculous. "This law makes the criminal's job easier" is the argument in both cases, but people only believe that argument in one case or the other, generally. Anecdotally, I have a friend who fits this perfectly. She was so gung-ho for telling people off for believing laws allowing people to use whatever restroom they want would result in rape, and yet refuses to accept that concealed carry permit holders are among the safest people to own firearms, because of fear.

Legislate by facts and science, not feelings. If you believe someone's preparations to be silly, that's fine, so long as the actual law is actually based on science instead of fear.

I'll be honest, I used to think we should get rid of guns entirely, but like someone else noted, the cat's out of the bag on that one. Now, if studies show that concealed carry permit holders are less likely to commit a violent act with those guns than a cop, then damn, let's do it.

As an aside, isn't "fearing firearms if they're visible" a reason we don't have open carry?

It's ironic that 8 times the number of people die in the U.S. from alcohol related causes than from being murdered in a gun related incident, yet the media, through advertising glorifies alcohol use. It's been my experience that some of the most vocal anti gun people have no problem with alcohol consumption or giving parties where alcohol is served. There are also those who have no problem using cartel supplied drugs, empowering the groups down in Mexico and other countries south who murder tens of thousands of people a year.
All antecdotal, I know, but I don't think I'd go broke betting that most on these boards know these kind of anti gun advocates.

Col. Dash wrote:
@Ouze- He was not checked for weapons as even concealed carriers are not allowed to carry weapons into a night club. He had a permit yes, but that permit did not permit him to go there since there is a state law against carrying in bars and night clubs

I am absolutely lost on the whole why would you defend against someone with a gun thing. Do you just plan on taking the shot like cow in line at the slaughterhouse or something? Sorry, Americans are brought up to stand up for themselves against threat, not just take it like some pansy muppet. There is no honor in dying without resistance.

Who are you addressing with the second line?

 cuda1179 wrote:
I once debated a teacher in high school about this very subject. When I compared the 1st Amendment to the 2nd she scoffed at me. She stated that the 1st was obviously more important because they listed it first. So, I then brought up that the 2nd was listed before the 3rd-10th Amendments. That must mean, by her logic, that the 2nd is more important than those. Her reply? Sending me to the office. Luckily the Principal was a pretty cool guy and had a talk to her about punishing students that out-debated her.

I believe every part of this story.

 SOFDC wrote:

Possible by a trained person? Sure.

Done in a high stress situation by an average person? That's a lot more questionable.

You are now aware that one of the forms submitted with the Texas CHL, specifically CHL-100, contains in big bold letters: CERTIFICATE OF TRAINING which includes where, when, and what licensed instructor evaluated your ability to at least hit the broad side of a barn while inside it. Should the individual feel that this instruction is not sufficient there are many, many private shooting schools and instructors in the US now, and let's be honest...if you can afford to shoot more, who wouldnt?

However, I have the distinct impression that when you say "A trained person" what you really mean is more along the lines of "Agent of the state" ...regardless of anyone`s ability to actually shoot or deal with pressure. Am I wrong?

I believe that was about firing from a draw within 1.5 seconds. Is firing from a quickdraw something that is covered in most training programs?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

Col. Dash wrote:
@Ouze- He was not checked for weapons as even concealed carriers are not allowed to carry weapons into a night club. He had a permit yes, but that permit did not permit him to go there since there is a state law against carrying in bars and night clubs

I am absolutely lost on the whole why would you defend against someone with a gun thing. Do you just plan on taking the shot like cow in line at the slaughterhouse or something? Sorry, Americans are brought up to stand up for themselves against threat, not just take it like some pansy muppet. There is no honor in dying without resistance.

Who are you addressing with the second line?

It does show a remarkable lack of historical awareness. Many times throughout history people dying without resistance have accomplished a lot more than those who died with guns in their hands who were struggling for the same goal. Would India have gained its independence were it not for ordinary people willing to walk towards people who would crack open their skulls yet not lift a hand to protect themselves or strike back? Possibly. Would it have been quicker and less bloody overall? I don't think so.

 CptJake wrote:
And again you are arguing against a point not made. I again never said it wasn't silly because it was in the constitution. I explained if you understand OUR constitution (not the one in StrawMan Land that protects the rights to own dildos) including the fact it has an amendment process and the reasons we have a Bill of Rights including this amendment you would understand why valuing guns is not silly. Because it isn't. Our country had (and has) plenty of very valid reasons to protect the right, and valuing the tool that enables that isn't going to be silly. Show me the StrawMan Land constitution and the history as to why they value dildos, and then maybe we can make a reasonable comparison.

If you want to make an argument that valuing guns isn't silly, then you make that argument. You actually list a bunch of benefits you from owning guns. But you didn't do that. Instead you posted "Stupid in your mind, but not in the eyes of folks who understand our constitution."

Seaward wrote:
A house fire's unlikely, yet we still have fire extinguishers and rope ladders for our third floor.

The day that people start walking around with holsters carrying fire extinguishers is the day that concealed carry will start looking like a sensible piece of risk aversion.

I mean, feth, carry guns around if you want. Guns are fun. But just fething admit that's why you do it.

 sebster wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
And again you are arguing against a point not made. I again never said it wasn't silly because it was in the constitution. I explained if you understand OUR constitution (not the one in StrawMan Land that protects the rights to own dildos) including the fact it has an amendment process and the reasons we have a Bill of Rights including this amendment you would understand why valuing guns is not silly. Because it isn't. Our country had (and has) plenty of very valid reasons to protect the right, and valuing the tool that enables that isn't going to be silly. Show me the StrawMan Land constitution and the history as to why they value dildos, and then maybe we can make a reasonable comparison.

If you want to make an argument that valuing guns isn't silly, then you make that argument. You actually list a bunch of benefits you from owning guns. But you didn't do that. Instead you posted "Stupid in your mind, but not in the eyes of folks who understand our constitution."

Seaward wrote:
A house fire's unlikely, yet we still have fire extinguishers and rope ladders for our third floor.

The day that people start walking around with holsters carrying fire extinguishers is the day that concealed carry will start looking like a sensible piece of risk aversion.

I mean, feth, carry guns around if you want. Guns are fun. But just fething admit that's why you do it.

Okay, but to even things out in your hypothetical, in every public building there needs to be several guns behind glass with signs that say "In case of active shooter break glass".

ITT: a bunch of foreigners who have given up their rights trying to convince Americans to give up theirs.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Okay, but to even things out in your hypothetical, in every public building there needs to be several guns behind glass with signs that say "In case of active shooter break glass".

This analogue only makes sense if armed civilians regularly stopped active shooters the way fire extinguishers regularly contain small fires. In reality, though, this is something that has nearly never happened, statistically - I can only think of a few examples, and we have an awful lot of mass shootings.

The idea of a good guy with a CCW pulling his daily carry and stopping some active shooter rampage is really kind of a fantasy. I support concealed carry in general and in this specific venue, but the idea that you might stop an active shooter really doesn't enter into it.

When I walked around campus back in 2000-2004 I had a case with an "emergency slot". This was a case that had a mini version of anything I needed should something happen while away from my dorm. I had a mini sewing kit, bandaids, gauss, eye-dropper of alcohol, extra eye glasses, 5 $20 bills, a half-roll of quarters, and a memory stick. All of this could fit in a small pouch and I never really new it was there, until I needed it one day. Yes, I lugged around an extra pound of stuff for 4 years, but I'm glad I did for the two times I used it.

Would I have carried a gun if I had the chance? Maybe. Less likely to use it that anything else in the emergency kit, but if I ever did use it it would mean more than anything else in there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Okay, but to even things out in your hypothetical, in every public building there needs to be several guns behind glass with signs that say "In case of active shooter break glass".

This analogue only makes sense if armed civilians regularly stopped active shooters the way fire extinguishers regularly contain small fires. In reality, though, this is something that has nearly never happened, statistically - I can only think of a few examples, and we have an awful lot of mass shootings.

The idea of a good guy with a CCW pulling his daily carry and stopping some active shooter rampage is really kind of a fantasy. I support concealed carry in general and in this specific venue, but the idea that you might stop an active shooter really doesn't enter into it.

I somewhat agree with you, however you are forgetting some things. In order for an active shooter to be stopped by a carrying citizen, there actually has to be someone with a gun there. Usually there isn't, and a lot of the time that is because it isn't allowed. A more actuate thing to figure out is how often (percentage wise) when an active shooter engages someone with a gun is the gun used successfully. Even if you have the numbers the data pool is way too small to draw any kind of conclusion. Even then, successfully using the gun doesn't mean killing the shooter. The purpose is to protect yourself, not save the day. Someone that makes a shooter back off without firing a shot just used it correctly. Personally, I'd rather have the option and not need it.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Okay, but to even things out in your hypothetical, in every public building there needs to be several guns behind glass with signs that say "In case of active shooter break glass".

To be supplemented by an Active Shooter Department, who stay in Active Shooter Stations, until someone reports an Active Shooter, then they slide down the pole in the station, and drive to the site of the Active Shooter in big red trucks with miniguns on them, ready to respond to the Active Shooter by hosing them down with bullets.


But seriously, can we just admit people walk around with guns because they think guns are cool? Also, baseball caps are about fashion not sun protection, and those jackets women wear over their evening dresses do absolutely nothing about the cold.

 sebster wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Okay, but to even things out in your hypothetical, in every public building there needs to be several guns behind glass with signs that say "In case of active shooter break glass".

To be supplemented by an Active Shooter Department, who stay in Active Shooter Stations, until someone reports an Active Shooter,.

I believe that's called the POLICE. We all ready have those.

Mitochondria wrote:
ITT: a bunch of foreigners who have given up their rights trying to convince Americans to give up theirs.

I can't speak for any other dirty, stinking foreigner, but I'm not trying to get anyone to give up any gun rights. That's a decision you guys can make whatever way you want. My only issue is that you think about the issue sensibly. This means criticising the anti-gun side when they fixate on scary 'assault weapons' and mass shootings, and it means criticising the pro-gun side when they assign positive properties to guns that aren't there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I believe that's called the POLICE. We all ready have those.

That is the joke.

 sebster wrote:
The day that people start walking around with holsters carrying fire extinguishers is the day that concealed carry will start looking like a sensible piece of risk aversion.

I mean, feth, carry guns around if you want. Guns are fun. But just fething admit that's why you do it.

Ah, good, Schrodinger's Violence: the United States has a massive gun violence problem or not anywhere near enough gun violence to warrant actually carrying a gun for defense, depending on what state of his argument the gun control proponent has reached.

Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
The day that people start walking around with holsters carrying fire extinguishers is the day that concealed carry will start looking like a sensible piece of risk aversion.

I mean, feth, carry guns around if you want. Guns are fun. But just fething admit that's why you do it.

Ah, good, Schrodinger's Violence: the United States has a massive gun violence problem or not anywhere near enough gun violence to warrant actually carrying a gun for defense, depending on what state of his argument the gun control proponent has reached.

I know, right? I love how you can pick 10 other gun threads in here, and find non-stop arguments about how bad our gun violence is, and all of a sudden, now it's not that bad at all.

Mitochondria wrote:
ITT: a bunch of foreigners who have given up their rights trying to convince Americans to give up theirs.

Careful, you can be suspended here for that statement. Better to say we come from different cultures.

@Ouze- "This analogue only makes sense if armed civilians regularly stopped active shooters the way fire extinguishers regularly contain small fires. In reality, though, this is something that has nearly never happened, statistically - I can only think of a few examples, and we have an awful lot of mass shootings"(never figured this quote thing out)

Except almost every mass shooting takes place in "Gun Free Zones" where law abiding people are not allowed to carry concealed weapons. This new law at least gets rid of some of these shooting galleries. If we don't have any mass shootings in TX universities over the next few years, I think we can call it a success as a deterrent. It is proven that bad guys target gun free zones since no one has weapons to fight back with. The batman theater shooter even admitted so in his journal as to why he chose his target.

And yes that other line from before was for Slyth I think or whoever keeps arguing that you can always run from a bullet..

 sebster wrote:

But seriously, can we just admit people walk around with guns because they think guns are cool? Also, baseball caps are about fashion not sun protection, and those jackets women wear over their evening dresses do absolutely nothing about the cold.

I'm going to be blunt here. I might not have agreed with a lot of your assertions in the past, but I always pegged you as a highly intelligent individual. The posts that you have made, even if I disagreed, have always been well-thought out and rational.


That being said, this statement you made above has to be the most ridiculous thing I have seen coming from you. Which shocks me, to be frank.


If you think that most law-abiding Americans who carry are doing so to be "fashionable" or "cool", then you are sorely, SORELY misinformed. And wherever you are getting this "fact" from, that you insist that we outright lie and "admit to", wouldn't know (or understand) the actual facts if they walked and slapped them in the face.

Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
The day that people start walking around with holsters carrying fire extinguishers is the day that concealed carry will start looking like a sensible piece of risk aversion.

I mean, feth, carry guns around if you want. Guns are fun. But just fething admit that's why you do it.

Ah, good, Schrodinger's Violence: the United States has a massive gun violence problem or not anywhere near enough gun violence to warrant actually carrying a gun for defense, depending on what state of his argument the gun control proponent has reached.

That is a dishonest argument. Actually it's the pro-gun people that are using Shrodinger's violence. I haven't seen anyone saying that there isn't enough violence to justify carrying a gun so you shouldn't be able to.

 skyth wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
The day that people start walking around with holsters carrying fire extinguishers is the day that concealed carry will start looking like a sensible piece of risk aversion.

I mean, feth, carry guns around if you want. Guns are fun. But just fething admit that's why you do it.

Ah, good, Schrodinger's Violence: the United States has a massive gun violence problem or not anywhere near enough gun violence to warrant actually carrying a gun for defense, depending on what state of his argument the gun control proponent has reached.

That is a dishonest argument. Actually it's the pro-gun people that are using Shrodinger's violence. I haven't seen anyone saying that there isn't enough violence to justify carrying a gun so you shouldn't be able to.

 skyth wrote:
And the chance of that being something you have to worry about is incredibly low...And the chance of having a gun helping you in the situation isn't all that high either.

So basically, people feel the need to carry a weapon because of fear of something that is really unlikely. Makes them look silly, much like Sheldon Cooper in his disaster preparation drills...

 sebster wrote:

The day that people start walking around with holsters carrying fire extinguishers is the day that concealed carry will start looking like a sensible piece of risk aversion.

Given that most modern buildings already have these stashed everywhere, and that automatic sprinkler systems to suppress fire are included in almost every nonresidential building, as well as the fact that a fire isnt going to mug you in a parking lot, the bases are probably covered in that regard. I do carry an extinguisher in my car however.

 djones520 wrote:

 skyth wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
The day that people start walking around with holsters carrying fire extinguishers is the day that concealed carry will start looking like a sensible piece of risk aversion.

I mean, feth, carry guns around if you want. Guns are fun. But just fething admit that's why you do it.

Ah, good, Schrodinger's Violence: the United States has a massive gun violence problem or not anywhere near enough gun violence to warrant actually carrying a gun for defense, depending on what state of his argument the gun control proponent has reached.

That is a dishonest argument. Actually it's the pro-gun people that are using Shrodinger's violence. I haven't seen anyone saying that there isn't enough violence to justify carrying a gun so you shouldn't be able to.

 skyth wrote:
And the chance of that being something you have to worry about is incredibly low...And the chance of having a gun helping you in the situation isn't all that high either.

So basically, people feel the need to carry a weapon because of fear of something that is really unlikely. Makes them look silly, much like Sheldon Cooper in his disaster preparation drills...

And point out EXACTLY where I said you shouldn't be able to carry one. I'm waiting...

 skyth wrote:

Safety equipment used when there is a reasonable chance of needing it isn't fear based. It is, however when the threat isn-t reasonable.

Needing a weapon in the normal course of your day is not a reasonable percaution, especially when evasion is the safer method in general.

Have you seen the crime stats in the US? It's not all unreasonable. I've had to draw my ccw before in a situation where "evasion" wasn't possible. Thankfully I didn't have to shoot.

 skyth wrote:


So go get your CCW and cary if you want. I'm not going to stop you. However I will have a lower opinion of you. It proves to me that you are either unreasonably paranoid or a gung ho bully.

 skyth wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Sounds suspiciously like the argument that criminals won't follow laws or rules so why have any laws or rules in the first place?

I prefer to think of it as, why create laws that needlessly endanger people?

You mean, of course, laws enabling people to bring weapons into a place.

In this post you would seem to be advocating against laws allowing folks to be armed.

Am I misreading your statement?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 skyth wrote:

Safety equipment used when there is a reasonable chance of needing it isn't fear based. It is, however when the threat isn-t reasonable.

Needing a weapon in the normal course of your day is not a reasonable percaution, especially when evasion is the safer method in general.

Have you seen the crime stats in the US? It's not all unreasonable. I've had to draw my ccw before in a situation where "evasion" wasn't possible. Thankfully I didn't have to shoot.

Why do I get the feeling that you didn't actually need to draw it...

 Vaktathi wrote:

 sebster wrote:

The day that people start walking around with holsters carrying fire extinguishers is the day that concealed carry will start looking like a sensible piece of risk aversion.

Given that most modern buildings already have these stashed everywhere, and that automatic sprinkler systems to suppress fire are included in almost every nonresidential building, as well as the fact that a fire isnt going to mug you in a parking lot, the bases are probably covered in that regard. I do carry an extinguisher in my car however.

I just drink a lot of coffee every hour. "Fire extinguisher" ...check!