• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas poised to pass bill allowing guns on campus

Wait...so your contention is that on campus, in class adults who choose to carry a weapon will be playing with it?
I must admit that due to an error by my father I spent some of my military service as an Air Force security guard on a SAC base. Because I was an NCO I carried a side arm - 38 special revolver – every day. I would load at the barrel and then get in my truck and unload. Then I would reload at quitting time so that I could unload at the barrel. At night I would make my rounds – give coffee to the dog handlers – plot the parked air craft – etc and then go out to the bomb dump to BS with those guys. I parked out front and went through the small security gates and when I knocked on the door to the office one of the guys would jerk the door open and I would draw my pistol on the complotter. It was always close and we were both pretty fast. Then, one night, I pulled my pistol and found myself pointing my gun at my boss’s head. He had come in through the big gates and parked behind the building. The guys all but fell on the floor laughing as I stood there in shock until I realized that my boss was asleep in a chair in front of the door. I put my gun away, cursed them all to hell and left. They laughed about that for months.
 
That's not true. I teach and have taught at that level and they are not allowed in class. They are turned off and put away. Now, the phone function has a purpose, so they are allowed on campus, but not for use in the classroom.

This is a popular video among college professors:

Mad Professor Smashes Cell Phone

;)





If you asked me to turn my phone "off", in your class, I'd politley decline. I'd be happy to set it on vibrate, but off? Sorry, I am much too important for such a request...


that said, if a Vtech type killer came into your class, you would not only not be able to shoot him, but all your students would be shot trying to get thier iphones to boot. Now thats some special kinda logic you have there. :lamo
 
If you asked me to turn my phone "off", in your class, I'd politley decline. I'd be happy to set it on vibrate, but off? Sorry, I am much too important for such a request...


that said, if a Vtech type killer came into your class, you would not only not be able to shoot him, but all your students would be shot trying to get thier iphones to boot. Now thats some special kinda logic you have there. :lamo

Professionals do not believe students being armed wiould stop such shootings, or even limit the damage. And those who are chraged with helping colleges specifically are against it.

As for vibrate, I migth live with that, but you would not be on your phone talkign or playing games and stay in my class. ;)
 
Professionals do not believe students being armed wiould stop such shootings, or even limit the damage. And those who are chraged with helping colleges specifically are against it.

What about teachers, given your refusal to allow the students the right to carry in case of a self defense need, you bear the responsibility for thier safety, should you not then be armed incase of a Vtech type shooter, or other instance?



As for vibrate, I migth live with that, but you would not be on your phone talkign or playing games and stay in my class. ;)


Honestly I would probably be asleep in your class, if I didn't drop it..... you bore the hell out of me.... :pimpdaddy:
 
I've never turned my cell off for class. People can't get a hold of me if it's off.

ppl no teh best way 2 talk 2 me is via txt, cuz im not alwayz in a sitiation whr i cn tlk. i set teh fone 2 vib, i look at a txt n /ignor if whatever or reply if impt.
 
Last edited:
What about teachers, given your refusal to allow the students the right to carry in case of a self defense need, you bear the responsibility for thier safety, should you not then be armed incase of a Vtech type shooter, or other instance?

No one needs to be armed. This is something rare, very, very rare, and being armed would not likely stop it. Besides, I work withy professors and you really don't want these people with guns. Seriously, you don't. ;)
 
That's not true. I teach and have taught at that level and they are not allowed in class. They are turned off and put away. Now, the phone function has a purpose, so they are allowed on campus, but not for use in the classroom.

This is a popular video among college professors:

Mad Professor Smashes Cell Phone

;)

That's not the way it goes in actual University, however. Sorry to burst your bubble. People play games, they facebook, they twitter, they text, etc. all through out class.
 
No one needs to be armed. This is something rare, very, very rare, and being armed would not likely stop it. Besides, I work withy professors and you really don't want these people with guns. Seriously, you don't. ;)

I work with professors too. I don't care if any of them are armed. Maybe no one "needs" to be armed, but it is their right to be so they can choose to arm themselves if they wish to. It's a right, not a privilege. There is a large difference between "doesn't need" and "can".
 
I work with professors too. I don't care if any of them are armed. Maybe no one "needs" to be armed, but it is their right to be so they can choose to arm themselves if they wish to. It's a right, not a privilege. There is a large difference between "doesn't need" and "can".

No, I don't believe it is their right. I don't believe the right is absolute. And past rulings have stated as much.
 
That's not the way it goes in actual University, however. Sorry to burst your bubble. People play games, they facebook, they twitter, they text, etc. all through out class.

Then shame on them and their professors. Money and time is being wasted.
 
Then shame on them and their professors. Money and time is being wasted.

How the students decide to spend their time is up to them.
 
No one needs to be armed.

Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.

Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun | The Argus Leader | argusleader.com

Having a firearm is like having catastrophic life insurance. Hopefully, I'll never have to use it, but if in the rare and unlikely event I need it, it's there.
 
Having a firearm is like having catastrophic life insurance. Hopefully, I'll never have to use it, but if in the rare and unlikely event I need it, it's there.

It's nothing of the kind. ;)
 
Yes, it is.



Look at the data in the OP again, notice how, in every singe instance, when firearms are carried by the public, crime goes down....a lot. Every time.



It sure the hell is.....saved me from a street fight at 3am in an ally the other day, at least.

Read your study again, they cannot say that violence went down everywhere because of guns being available. And they did not look at every single instance. You may recall the Brady bill. Do you know crime went down after the Brady bill? It did. And liberals said, "see the Brady bill proves that limiting guns reduces crime." Back then I had to argue with them that they were making the same mistake you are. It's called a causal relationship error. The fact is crime has been mostly going down for a while. And it is likely for a number of different reasons. But to prove causality, you need more than a came before b so as the cause.

but, no, it isn't. An inusrance policy that a significant number hurt themself with isn't much of an insurance policy.
 
Last edited:
Read your study again, they cannot say that violence went down everywhere because of guns being available. And they did not look at every single instance. You may recall the Brady bill. Do you know crime went down after the Brady bill? It did. And liberals said, "see the Brady bill proves that limiting guns reduces crime." Back then I had to argue with them that they were making the same mistake you are. It's called a causal relationship error. The fact is crime has been mostly going down for a while. And it is likely for a number of different reasons. But to prove causality, you need more than a came before b so as the cause.

but, no, it isn't. An inusrance policy that a significant number hurt themself with isn't much of an insurance policy.

Well as soon as you proves a causality fallacy occurred.....
 
I asked what would you consider substanization.

More recent cases which reverses belatedly reverses this bystander approach and is gradually, but slowly working towards a more rational approach towards campus safety issues.

And it is true, here I draw on personal experience of working on an ambulence for a decade and seeing people shoot themselves a lot.

But, I don't think it takes a study to know we don't know, use or work with guns like did once upon a time.

I guess it's equal then as I don't understand this coment.

Which has nothing to do with any pointed you're responding to.

A lot of people don't know the tool well as evidenced not only by personal exience, but by satisitics that show a large number of people hurting not criminals, but themselves.

Giving them guns is not wise to carry around at school is not wise.

Some drive to fast in bad whether

I don't anyone who has studied guns in the classroom.

And while I agree with the numbers won't be high, sooner or later someone will make a mistake.

I see as no less nonsensical as car surfing.

Yes, they are allowed to drink, and do so less responsibilty than older more mature populations.

Yes, they are allowed to drive, but do so less responsibily than older more mature populations.

We than then logically predict that they will treat weapons less responsibily than older more mature populations.

As overwhelming guns have not been allowed in classrooms, we don't have much to count as accidents with them there.

The more states involved, further removed from rural America, and I think you will see more and more problems.

I have no emotional attach to any tool.

It's not that guns in and of them self are bad or a problem

Jerry, as for average age, averages are effected by many factors.

I buy neither guns will save us or destory us.

Many seem to have never seen Malow's hieracy of needs.

As long as I can remember both sides have taken rulings to be major and definitavie, but in the end, they weren't.

Assumption based on information concerning maturity level and documented cases of young people being irresponsible with their adult responsibilities.

This is just the facts

That said, there would be studies as there is no wide spread group to study.

The Harvard study showed next to know difference they could prove.

It is if someone shoots themself.

Guns are in and of themselfs a risk.

Never said they did anything on there own.

There is also no need for one or any purpose for one, and making it a needless risk.

An inusrance policy that a significant number hurt themself with isn't much of an insurance policy.

Money and time is being wasted.

you teach?

LOL!
 
Last edited:
Read your study again, they cannot say that violence went down everywhere because of guns being available. And they did not look at every single instance. You may recall the Brady bill. Do you know crime went down after the Brady bill? It did. And liberals said, "see the Brady bill proves that limiting guns reduces crime." Back then I had to argue with them that they were making the same mistake you are. It's called a causal relationship error. The fact is crime has been mostly going down for a while. And it is likely for a number of different reasons. But to prove causality, you need more than a came before b so as the cause.

but, no, it isn't. An inusrance policy that a significant number hurt themself with isn't much of an insurance policy.

This is not something new, there is a city in GA. that has had a very similar law for quite some time now .

Kennesaw crime rates are less than half of US averages.

In 1982 Kennesaw passed this law

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

Home burglaries dropped from 65 before the ordinance, down to 26 in 1983, and to 11 in 1984. Another report observed a noticeable reduction in burglary from 1981, the year before the ordinance was passed, to 1999.

Now I remember your own "logical assumptions" concerning carrying a weapon on college campuses, I would think that there are some logical assumptions to be made in this case as well .

One thing that can be stated as fact, and cannot be debated, the law that told people that they had to have a gun in their house, did not raise crime rates.
 
No, it isn't. Look at those accidental shootings again. Some insurance policy let me tell ya. ;)

Accidental deaths due to firearms are below the death rate of gravity. Seriously, if you want to go this route, you need to campaign for shower mats in bathtubs. You know how many people die each year from slipping in the shower? A 5 dollar shower mat prevents that.
 
Accidental deaths due to firearms are below the death rate of gravity. Seriously, if you want to go this route, you need to campaign for shower mats in bathtubs. You know how many people die each year from slipping in the shower? A 5 dollar shower mat prevents that.

First point, I didn't limit it to deaths. I said accidental shootings. And it really doesn't matter how many deaths, or even accidents happen with anything else. I'm not claiming having a car is an insurance policy against injury.
 
First point, I didn't limit it to deaths. I said accidental shootings. And it really doesn't matter how many deaths, or even accidents happen with anything else. I'm not claiming having a car is an insurance policy against injury.

OK, so what? People like you got all the good fireworks banned too. And it's good that you're not claiming that about cars, because having a car and driving one has the most impact on your life/death probabilities. So it cannot be insurance against injury. Guns don't even come close to that probability. I'm not really going to be concerned about it until it does.
 
Back
Top Bottom