Texas poised to pass bill allowing guns on campus

Ikari · Mar 2, 2011

doctorhugo said:
I'm a Second Amendment guy too, but I realize there can be legitimate limitations. Those limitations, can be tested in court by constitutional challenge. Public law, in this case, USC 930 Section 18, titled Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities, states:

Anybody with a carry permit should be aware and familiar with this and realize that although government buildings are the subject of this law there are laws for other "public" areas. One thing must be borne in mind though. If that is so it is "reasonable" to understand that the courts in any Second Amendment challenge to a law restricting or limiting possession of firearms in 'private' buildings/facilities/areas would be inclined to uphold such as in the "public interest", because that interest overrides any individual right.

Yes, but you need to demonstrate that public interest. Public interest in and of itself does not override individual rights. There has to be a quantifiable risk to the public at large. Now some of that isn't even true. Allowing guns in society in general means that there will be a certain amount of gun crime. Certainly the aggregated use of guns in this country has led to a non-zero amount of gun crime and thus there is an overall risk to the American populace by allowing guns to be legal. Yet we do not use that public interest to then strip all guns away even though if you could remove enough guns you would start to affect the overall probabilities of gun crime. So there is a limit to what we can do, even in "public interest".

However, as related to this debate, there is concern that what is being stripped away is being done so only by thoughts of assumption and supposition, not actual risks. What are the probabilities that any one of us can die on any given day? How is that probability affected by allowing or banning guns on campus? There has to be an effect there if you wish to infringe upon the rights of the individual. I've already stated that on my campus (in general in CO), concealed carry is allowed. There are bars, and young adults, and guns; yet there has been no shootings or anything of the like here. So obviously, just allowing adults to carry concealed, even on University property, does very little to our actual risk factors. If that is the case, then there is no "public interest", there is no legitimate argument by which you can authorize government force against the rights and liberties of the individual.

We've already decided to be free, that in and of itself carries with it the greatest amount of risk. Small perturbations above and below that mark are not going to manifest themselves in significant increases/decreases to our overall risk and probabilities of death.

doctorhugo · Mar 2, 2011

Iron River said:
No law will keep a person with bad intentions from taking a gun to a school – unless the law is one that leaves the person wondering how many guns he may face at the school.

Don't take this wrong guy, but you're opining from a highly questionable position. Young kids think they're indestructable just as we did when we were young and they are not about to stop and worry about how many other guns they'd face-off against in the big Gunfght at the school OK Corral. They don't take rules too damned seriously and it's getting worse. Allowing students to carry a weapon into school, any weapon, is against "the public interest". You have to start viewing this from a b-r-o-a-d-e-r constitutional and legal standard. Why? Because they, the courts, will set the bottom line on this and common sense will be the ultimate yardstick of opinion for rendering judgement.

Did you ever think that if the teachers were armed there might have been less violence against the teachers and the students?

I have, but then I thought that if the threat of violence is that great in a school, they need to go to a one entrance ONLY policy with armed security and a walk-through metal detector and all exits as alarmed fire doors that can only be opened from the inside with security cams monitoring the inside of exit fire-door area.

You can’t possibility tell us that the teachers were never attacked or threatened. I personally know a teacher that was molested and threatened on a regular basses. If she had shot the first student that grabbed her breast the other thugs would have been less likely to touch any of the teachers.

Guess what? Wrong method of resolution. She would have had her ass sued off! And if she was found liable due to use of excessive force that could actually have the reverse effect on wiseass punks who respect nobody and nothing.

Boo Radley · Mar 2, 2011

Ikari said:
Yes, but you need to demonstrate that public interest. Public interest in and of itself does not override individual rights. There has to be a quantifiable risk to the public at large. Now some of that isn't even true. Allowing guns in society in general means that there will be a certain amount of gun crime. Certainly the aggregated use of guns in this country has led to a non-zero amount of gun crime and thus there is an overall risk to the American populace by allowing guns to be legal. Yet we do not use that public interest to then strip all guns away even though if you could remove enough guns you would start to affect the overall probabilities of gun crime. So there is a limit to what we can do, even in "public interest".

However, as related to this debate, there is concern that what is being stripped away is being done so only by thoughts of assumption and supposition, not actual risks. What are the probabilities that any one of us can die on any given day? How is that probability affected by allowing or banning guns on campus? There has to be an effect there if you wish to infringe upon the rights of the individual. I've already stated that on my campus (in general in CO), concealed carry is allowed. There are bars, and young adults, and guns; yet there has been no shootings or anything of the like here. So obviously, just allowing adults to carry concealed, even on University property, does very little to our actual risk factors. If that is the case, then there is no "public interest", there is no legitimate argument by which you can authorize government force against the rights and liberties of the individual.

We've already decided to be free, that in and of itself carries with it the greatest amount of risk. Small perturbations above and below that mark are not going to manifest themselves in significant increases/decreases to our overall risk and probabilities of death.

I respect you for a lot of reasons, but I just don't buy all of that. Guns are in and of themselfs a risk. We ahve the numbers of how often people shoot themselves. It's a fair number. Add to a population less likley to make great decisions, and you increase the risk. We don't live in the frontier anymore. The need for the tool is far less than it was when this country was first forming. In fact, most of the reasons for the 2nd amendment no longer exist. So, while I'm against any complete ban on guns, we an still exercise good sense and not have too many folks running around with guns where they are not needed.

Boo Radley · Mar 2, 2011

Ikari said:
You keep saying this, but you have nothing to back it up with. What is the risk? How much is it? Do you understand that this is a major flaw in your arugment? Does it penetrate your skull that when you say it is a needless risk that maybe you should quantify the risk. If I get rid of guns on my campus today, how much lower is the probability that I will be killed that day? How much? Can you answer it? Because if you say it is a risk then it must have some effect on my overall probabilities of death on any given day. So, what is it? How much are my probabilities lowered by removing guns on my campus?

You can't say anything in any amount of quantifiable assertion. And yet you want us to accept infringments against the rights of the individual based on your flawed, incomplete, and illogical argument? You can't be f'n serious.

As I have said before, it's a logic problem and not one to link to anything. As we ahve not had guns on campus, there will have been no studies. But, that doesn't mean we can't think and make reasonable assumptions based on the information we do have of the population we're speaking of.

Jerry · Mar 2, 2011

Ikari said:
Yes, but you need to demonstrate that public interest. Public interest in and of itself does not override individual rights. There has to be a quantifiable risk to the public at large. Now some of that isn't even true. Allowing guns in society in general means that there will be a certain amount of gun crime. Certainly the aggregated use of guns in this country has led to a non-zero amount of gun crime and thus there is an overall risk to the American populace by allowing guns to be legal. Yet we do not use that public interest to then strip all guns away even though if you could remove enough guns you would start to affect the overall probabilities of gun crime. So there is a limit to what we can do, even in "public interest".

However, as related to this debate, there is concern that what is being stripped away is being done so only by thoughts of assumption and supposition, not actual risks. What are the probabilities that any one of us can die on any given day? How is that probability affected by allowing or banning guns on campus? There has to be an effect there if you wish to infringe upon the rights of the individual. I've already stated that on my campus (in general in CO), concealed carry is allowed. There are bars, and young adults, and guns; yet there has been no shootings or anything of the like here. So obviously, just allowing adults to carry concealed, even on University property, does very little to our actual risk factors. If that is the case, then there is no "public interest", there is no legitimate argument by which you can authorize government force against the rights and liberties of the individual.

We've already decided to be free, that in and of itself carries with it the greatest amount of risk. Small perturbations above and below that mark are not going to manifest themselves in significant increases/decreases to our overall risk and probabilities of death.

UofC?

I was going to look up their actual policy.

Jerry · Mar 2, 2011

Boo Radley said:
As I have said before, it's a logic problem and not one to link to anything. As we ahve not had guns on campus, there will have been no studies. But, that doesn't mean we can't think and make reasonable assumptions based on the information we do have of the population we're speaking of.

It's not a mere logic problem and yes you need to provide evidence.

Can we get someone a little more skilled at debate that Boo here? I was really hoping for an opportunity to refine how the argument would go down in court, where evidence is mandatory.

Boo Radley · Mar 2, 2011

Jerry said:
How often does that occur?

Well, one person has brough a shot to my classroom, so of those who do, 100% of the time.

You aren't even posting the data, though.

It isn't a data question. It hasn't happened in forever, so there is no data to cite. Look support is a good thing, but it doesn't replace the ability to reason. Sometimes, when there has been any studies, we have to think, reason, look at other data, like how college students behave with other responsibilities.

That's fine that you hold that position, but you need to demonstrate it.

I can tell you right now that whatever argument you can make against firearms, I can make a stronger argument on medical mistakes and vehicular homicide; so by your logic we have to ban cars and paramedics before we ban firearms.

Well, that's subjective. Some will agree with you, and others not so much. And no one is doing surgery in the classroom or driving in the classroom. The thing is not about elimanating all risk, just NEEDLESS risk.

One of my chief instructors was, is, militant gun control. Oh yes, he would not have hesitated.

So, he didn't see. Can you really be sure no one knew? Or that no one else would ever let anyone see? That's a hard standard to meet.

So there was no reason in mentioning it in this debate.

None other than I thought it was interesting. I thought I'd ask students what they thought. Did so again in two classes, and the result was near the same. I just thought it was worth asking. So I shared. But I never claimed it proved anything, and did in fact note that it didn't.

Jerry · Mar 2, 2011

Boo Radley said:
But I never claimed it proved anything, and did in fact note that it didn't.

There's a Basement thread dedicated to recording things "noted", and as you didn't post your 'note' in that thread, I know it therefore was not "noted".

Anyway, I didn't see any hyperlinks to your sources, so I'll assume you're simply expressing your opinion again. Which is fine, by the way, but I'm looking for actual debate, which necessarily means the presentation of data via credible sources.

Boo Radley · Mar 2, 2011

Jerry said:
There's a Basement thread dedicated to recording things "noted", and as you didn't post your 'note' in that thread, I know it therefore was not "noted".

Anyway, I didn't see any hyperlinks to your sources, so I'll assume you're simply expressing your opinion again. Which is fine, by the way, but I'm looking for actual debate, which necessarily means the presentation of data via credible sources.

That's not true. I deal in debate and argument, and they do not require data or research. They require something more important, reasoning. Data, if it exists, can be helpful, but it does not replace reasoning.

The Prof · Mar 2, 2011

Boo Radley said:
I deal in debate and argument, and they do not require data or research.

preposterous

Ikari · Mar 2, 2011

Jerry said:
UofC?

I was going to look up their actual policy.

Colorado State University. In CO in general, CCW are allowed on campus. For a University to change that, they have to file themselves under...I don't know all the details. But CCW is allowed and for it not to be allowed the school has to file special. I think CU doesn't allow it; but they're a bunch of stoners anyway.

Ikari · Mar 2, 2011

Boo Radley said:
As I have said before, it's a logic problem and not one to link to anything. As we ahve not had guns on campus, there will have been no studies. But, that doesn't mean we can't think and make reasonable assumptions based on the information we do have of the population we're speaking of.

You can, but in the end you're dealing with rights; not parking. And because it is rights and because it is the use of government force against the free exercise of those rights; you must have more than assumption and supposition. And as I've stated before, there are Universities which do allow guns on campus, you can look at them to see how much of an actual problem it really is. (pssst....it's not).

Ikari · Mar 2, 2011

Boo Radley said:
I respect you for a lot of reasons, but I just don't buy all of that. Guns are in and of themselfs a risk. We ahve the numbers of how often people shoot themselves. It's a fair number. Add to a population less likley to make great decisions, and you increase the risk. We don't live in the frontier anymore. The need for the tool is far less than it was when this country was first forming. In fact, most of the reasons for the 2nd amendment no longer exist. So, while I'm against any complete ban on guns, we an still exercise good sense and not have too many folks running around with guns where they are not needed.

Guns are in and of themselves a risk. We've allowed that. We've come from a principled stance and decided that free was the way we wanted to go, and to ensure that there had to be precautions built in so that the people could never be fully dominated by the State. As such, we have guns. By allowing guns we get a certain amount of gun crime. Murder, accidental shooting (which is actually lower than death by gravity), certain violent crimes, etc. We've already accepted the risk when we decided to be free. That's what I'm saying here. You want to servo a zero factor; you're not going to affect our actual risks in any measurable way by allowing or disallowing guns on University. Since the University student is an adult, and since there won't be any measurable affect on our risk factors beyond that which we've already accepted; there is no just reason to infringe upon the exercise of the right in this case.

Boo Radley · Mar 2, 2011

The Prof said:
preposterous

let me see if I can demonstrate. Here's some research:

More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread eaters. And More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.

Those are true statisitics. What do they mean? That bread causes people to commit felons?

How about this:

Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests.

That's data. So, now not only does bread lead to a life of crime, but it makes you stupid. Why do we allow anyone to eat bread?

How about this:

In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever and influenza ravaged whole nations.

Wow, it also makes people sick. Damn that bread!!!!!

I wish I made up these statisitcs or the example of the stupidity of reseach without reasoning, but I didn't. I'm sure you can do a quick search on the dangers of bread. Debate is not just about links. Yes, you want to support your argument, but you can do that in more than one way. Links come in when you question the factual information. if the argument is one of reasoning, you have to tackle the reasoning.

Boo Radley · Mar 2, 2011

Ikari said:
Guns are in and of themselves a risk. We've allowed that. We've come from a principled stance and decided that free was the way we wanted to go, and to ensure that there had to be precautions built in so that the people could never be fully dominated by the State. As such, we have guns. By allowing guns we get a certain amount of gun crime. Murder, accidental shooting (which is actually lower than death by gravity), certain violent crimes, etc. We've already accepted the risk when we decided to be free. That's what I'm saying here. You want to servo a zero factor; you're not going to affect our actual risks in any measurable way by allowing or disallowing guns on University. Since the University student is an adult, and since there won't be any measurable affect on our risk factors beyond that which we've already accepted; there is no just reason to infringe upon the exercise of the right in this case.

I understand the thinking, but guns will not prevent the state from dominating you. You'll best have a plan B. But I simply disagree. Sooner or later somoeone will make a poor decision with a weapon on campus, and your side will feel the heat. And you will lose. MAD showed us the power of a mother concerned. And as you will have no support from schools or the police, and I suspect your side is even a minority nationally, it just isn't goning to end well for your wants.

I know you disagree, and for the life of me I can't understand anyone wanting a weapon on campus. It is simply an unnecessary risk, no matter how small. it's not like driving a car, which serves a needed purpose. It's completely unnecessary.

Ikari · Mar 2, 2011

Boo Radley said:
I understand the thinking, but guns will not prevent the state from dominating you. You'll best have a plan B. But I simply disagree. Sooner or later somoeone will make a poor decision with a weapon on campus, and your side will feel the heat. And you will lose. MAD showed us the power of a mother concerned. And as you will have no support from schools or the police, and I suspect your side is even a minority nationally, it just isn't goning to end well for your wants.

I know you disagree, and for the life of me I can't understand anyone wanting a weapon on campus. It is simply an unnecessary risk, no matter how small. it's not like driving a car, which serves a needed purpose. It's completely unnecessary.

MADD is a ridiculous propaganda campaign aimed at prohibition. They can take a long walk off a short pier for all I'm concerned.

Both the school and the police support our ability to carry concealed. It has not been an issue. For the life of me I can't understand anyone wanting to infringe upon the exercise of a right when that exercise does nothing to our overall risks and probabilities. We're build on this notion that the individual must be free to exercise their rights at their leisure. You say why would someone want a weapon on campus. The answer is clear. Because I want to and because it's my right to. That's it. Done and done. It's not unnecessary risk as IT DOES NOT ACTUALLY INCREASE RISK FACTORS.

I'd rather be free and accept all the consequences and risks which come along with that then to be restricted and "safe".

The Prof · Mar 2, 2011

Boo Radley said:
More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread eaters. And More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.

Those are true statisitics. What do they mean? That bread causes people to commit felons?

and just who have you been "debating" who claims that eating bread causes crime

LOL!

argument and debate don't require data or research---preposterous

The Prof · Mar 2, 2011

Boo Radley said:
It is simply an unnecessary risk, no matter how small. It's completely unnecessary.

says the person who pastes links from david vines, journolist and comedy central

to back up his "reasoning"

LOL!

Boo Radley · Mar 2, 2011

Ikari said:
MADD is a ridiculous propaganda campaign aimed at prohibition. They can take a long walk off a short pier for all I'm concerned.

Both the school and the police support our ability to carry concealed. It has not been an issue. For the life of me I can't understand anyone wanting to infringe upon the exercise of a right when that exercise does nothing to our overall risks and probabilities. We're build on this notion that the individual must be free to exercise their rights at their leisure. You say why would someone want a weapon on campus. The answer is clear. Because I want to and because it's my right to. That's it. Done and done. It's not unnecessary risk as IT DOES NOT ACTUALLY INCREASE RISK FACTORS.

I'd rather be free and accept all the consequences and risks which come along with that then to be restricted and "safe".

What you think of them is not the point. They were effective. And I never used the word increased. I said it was an unnecessary risk, one in which there is no purpose or need for.

Jerry · Mar 2, 2011

Boo Radley said:
let me see if I can demonstrate. Here's some research:

As they say on Wikipedia, "citation needed".

Boo Radley · Mar 2, 2011

Jerry said:
As they say on Wikipedia, "citation needed".

For factual information, yes. But Wikipedia is not a debate site. It is about posting factual information and not about making an argument or having a debate.

Ikari · Mar 2, 2011

Boo Radley said:
What you think of them is not the point. They were effective. And I never used the word increased. I said it was an unnecessary risk, one in which there is no purpose or need for.

An unnecessary risk is a risk which unnecesarily raises risk factors. You did indeed speak of increased risk. Because if a "risk" doesn't increase the risk factors of a system, it's not a risk. By calling it a risk, you are saying my probabilities of death or injury are higher. Not that you can quantify that. But the risk factors associated with allowing students on campus to carry guns will do relatively little to my overall probabilities of death. If you're not actually affecting the system, why support government force against the exercise of a right? It's not logical.

The Barbarian · Mar 2, 2011

Boo Radley said:
I respect you for a lot of reasons, but I just don't buy all of that. Guns are in and of themselfs a risk. We ahve the numbers of how often people shoot themselves. It's a fair number. Add to a population less likley to make great decisions, and you increase the risk. We don't live in the frontier anymore. The need for the tool is far less than it was when this country was first forming. In fact, most of the reasons for the 2nd amendment no longer exist. So, while I'm against any complete ban on guns, we an still exercise good sense and not have too many folks running around with guns where they are not needed.

A completely inaccurate statement, guns are in fact an inanimate object. A gun on it's own has never hurt anyone.

As stated before, we live in a dangerous world today, people seem to be growing more and more violent. Back in my college days we would never have this debate, because no one (that I was aware of) ever felt the need to be carrying a gun on campus.

Your debate that we shouldn't need or want guns on our campus, is (to me) a very good point. I'm one that surely thinks in the reasonable sense that we shouldn't even have a need for them on campus. Our educational system is a place to learn. Not to be worrying about our well being.

However, that is just not simply the case any more, parents as well as students are concerned about their welfare, while getting an education. It is also apparent that the police and the colleges are not capable of stemming the rising violence on college campuses

Is arming the students an answer, I really don't know, My opinion however is such that for those that might be teetering on doing a crime, would think twice about it, if they felt that they would meet armed resistance. At the same time things like what happened at VT would not be stopped, anyone that can kill people then put a gun to his head, is not going to be deterred.

My personal feeling on this, is that we need to find and work on ways of making our college campuses safe again, where the need to carry a firearm for ones personal safety is no longer needed. Until that happens, if I was a college student in todays world, I would be carrying a firearm. I would in no way shape or form, think it would be right to tell you, or anyone that they must carry one, as it would be a individual choice.

The law being presented in Texas, is not a must carry law, it's the freedom to do so. In my opinion, those that will arm themselves will be mostly those that are familiar, and comfortable with them. In any case, they will still have background checks done, and anything else required to get a cw permitt

Boo Radley · Mar 2, 2011

Never said they did anything on there own. People make the mistake. But you can't make a mistake with something you don't have. It really is simple to follow. I can't wreck a car I'm not driving or in either.

Boo Radley · Mar 2, 2011

Ikari said:
An unnecessary risk is a risk which unnecesarily raises risk factors. You did indeed speak of increased risk. Because if a "risk" doesn't increase the risk factors of a system, it's not a risk. By calling it a risk, you are saying my probabilities of death or injury are higher. Not that you can quantify that. But the risk factors associated with allowing students on campus to carry guns will do relatively little to my overall probabilities of death. If you're not actually affecting the system, why support government force against the exercise of a right? It's not logical.

No, that's not true. And while it does raise the risk for you, it likely doesn't effect the numbers significantly enough to register. But, you driving a car may not effect driving satisitics, but it is a risk for you. Something could go wrong. Same with carrying a gun. It is a risk. And it is an unecessary one.

Texas poised to pass bill allowing guns on campus

Active member