• 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 Senate approves guns in college classrooms

Sorry EROD, don't mean to step on all of your statistics...which are pretty cool by the way...but I encourage all to read them.

Now, back to "TheAngryAmerican's post...

Wow...for some reason...my post to your reply to this just disappeared so it turns up later..I'll try to get close to my point as possible as the previous in my following comments.

I'm a gun owner. That being said....

I'm confused by your comment about me supporting or imposing restrictions of any kind. In fact, I've never mentioned anything close to supporting or suggesting restricting guns.

You might want to re-read my comment to a poster who basically said, "Selling guns to the mentally ill is illegal" and I also assumed that the poster was alluding to: Since it's illegal, therefore the mentally ill can't get access to a gun.

I just stated the fact that guns are bought and sold daily under the radar of authorities. It's been like that for eons, and will continue to be like that. And it doesn't really matter if a person is mentally ill or a criminal...or whoever wants a gun...can buy one via an illegal street vendor.

I don't hunt. So, I might not own a gun if it weren't for criminals, mentally impaired who might just go off the deep end...and of course governments.

Welp, that's it...thanks.

By your quotes in this thread, you very clearly support restrictions on where firearms can be carried. You appear to be against allowing responsible gun owners to carry guns on a college campus, if they choose to. Restricting where a gun can be carried is restricting guns, period. You sound like the comment from the article I posted on the first page where someone basically said, "We don't want to restrict your rights to own guns, we just want you to keep them all locked up!" (I recommend reading the quote if you haven't already. It was hilarious.)

By your own admission, those who choose to disobey the law will always be able to obtain firearms. Since they already are comfortable disobeying the law, there is obviously nothing forcing them to comply with a simple restriction like a "Gun Free Zone," right? Still with me? So, those who choose to abide by the rule of law have effectively been disarmed and placed at the mercy of those who do not. Only a fool would try to resolve a conflict by placing all the power in the hands of their aggressor.

That’s what I meant by saying that you support restrictions that only serve to threaten the law-abiding.
 
By your quotes in this thread, you very clearly support restrictions on where firearms can be carried. You appear to be against allowing responsible gun owners to carry guns on a college campus, if they choose to. Restricting where a gun can be carried is restricting guns, period. You sound like the comment from the article I posted on the first page where someone basically said, "We don't want to restrict your rights to own guns, we just want you to keep them all locked up!" (I recommend reading the quote if you haven't already. It was hilarious.)

By your own admission, those who choose to disobey the law will always be able to obtain firearms. Since they already are comfortable disobeying the law, there is obviously nothing forcing them to comply with a simple restriction like a "Gun Free Zone," right? Still with me? So, those who choose to abide by the rule of law have effectively been disarmed and placed at the mercy of those who do not. Only a fool would try to resolve a conflict by placing all the power in the hands of their aggressor.

That’s what I meant by saying that you support restrictions that only serve to threaten the law-abiding.

Cool enough...you do have a talent for reading words that clearly aren't there. But some people love to make stuff up.

In other words...if you can't accept the fact that people can buy guns illegally then so be it...it doesn't exist...right? And so therefore, it's just my imagination? And by even bring up that fact...it makes me anti-gun?

Personally I don't care where "Licensed" concealed weapons are allowed "by law". But I think we both know that there are those who actually do live outside the law. That's something neither you are I can control. But we are both HOPEFULLY responsible gun owners who can control our behaviors in ways that won't violate laws that would give all other law abiding gun owning citizens a black eye. Right?
 
To add to the dialogue.....liberals like to paint Texas as a state that hands out guns like flyers. As if we're all carrying all the time.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

To get a CHL, you have to pass a rigorous background check and take classes on gun safety. You have to demonstrate your ability to handle a gun, and you have to be registered for the type of gun you carry. It takes time and effort, not to mention as squeaky clean record, to get one. Most people have no interest in carrying anyway.

But a wacko like what the Virginia Tech student might be stopped much sooner if a single student, or someone in the building, were carrying.
 
And it's my experience that law enforcement accomplishes little more than counting dead bodies and writing speeding tickets anyway.

When it comes to this type of violence, the police are wildly ineffective. They stop nothing.

They will be happy to hear your valued opinion. :roll:
 
The official position of the Chicago Police Department is dictated by the Mayor of Chicago, so that's certainly no surprise. I heard a Chicago copper on the radio the other day say that the majority of them think it's a good idea. 'Course that means nothing in the scheme of things, since it may not even be true.









Looks to me like the Chicago PD could use some help. Innocents aren't droppin' like flies from accidental shootings by licensed gun owners in right-to-carry states. I'm inclined to think I'd rather take my chances.

As those have little to do with schools, I'm not sure it matters. But more guns would likely mean more shootings, a more people shooting themselves. The shooting themselves is certainly supported by stats.
 
Cool enough...you do have a talent for reading words that clearly aren't there. But some people love to make stuff up.

In other words...if you can't accept the fact that people can buy guns illegally then so be it...it doesn't exist...right? And so therefore, it's just my imagination? And by even bring up that fact...it makes me anti-gun?

Personally I don't care where "Licensed" concealed weapons are allowed "by law". But I think we both know that there are those who actually do live outside the law. That's something neither you are I can control. But we are both HOPEFULLY responsible gun owners who can control our behaviors in ways that won't violate laws that would give all other law abiding gun owning citizens a black eye. Right?

Simple "yes" or "no" question:

Do you support students carrying guns on campus?

Please answer before going any further.

Now, I'm not saying that you're anti-gun for stating that criminals will always have access to guns. In fact, I completely agree with you on that. I've never even come remotely close to saying that laws will prevent bad people from getting guns on this board EVER. I'm calling you out for stating that you don't support the rights of law-abiding gun owners to protect themselves from the criminals.

...or was I just "reading words that weren't there" when you were supporting the Brady crowd and talking about people shooting up frat parties if they carried on campus?
 
I don't think you would. Look it up. Colorado Universities are one of them (except Boulder I think). Look up our gun crime statistics and compare it to the gun crime statistics of the Universities in the same city/area. Let me know what you find.

That still seems like too small an example, but I will look it up. And if Boulder is an exception, why do you think it is different?

The ability to defend life, liberty, and property is well more meaningful and necessary than getting to the store quicker.

Not sure a gun does that. Many of us manage to defend ourselves just fine without a gun. And we ahve the added benefit of not shooting ourselves. ;)

18 is adult and the time in which you get your nose out of other people's business. People are allowed to make their own decisions and make their own actions, for better or for worse. Sorry man, that's the way of it in a free country.

That's what the guy who sells crack on the corner says. However, ignoring that little joke, as their silliness certainly could spill over into my life, I do have so reason to be concerned.

You keep saying "police think" blah. Police can think anything they want, but they don't get to set the rules. Of course they don't want people having guns, that's people who can defend themselves, who are less reliant on them, and perhaps someone that may offer them a threat (sometimes deservedly so). Colorado is one place, but it is REAL NUMBERS. You haven't offered real anything. Until you do, you're point is moot because you have not a single measurement to back it up. Show me the data. You want to restrict the rights of the individual, you got to prove the case. It ain't the other way around, not in this Republic.

You're right to some degree. They don't get to decide. But this is their realm of expertise. So absent any siginificant statistical evidence, . . . yet . . . . it is good to hear what those who have some knowledge think.
 
They will be happy to hear your valued opinion. :roll:

It's not a criticism as much as an observation. What are they possibly supposed to do about a deranged gunman walking into a building to shoot up the place, then kill themselves?

They can't be everywhere (nor would we want them to be).
 
Last edited:
As those have little to do with schools, I'm not sure it matters. But more guns would likely mean more shootings, a more people shooting themselves. The shooting themselves is certainly supported by stats.

Really? More mention of these mystical "stats" that you never seem able to produce? ...or did you actually plan on posting said stats at any point in time? Come on, Boo, you know how the debate game is played.
 
If the people suddenly carrying firearms on Texas college campuses shoot sidearms as poorly as what I see at public shooting ranges the students are probably safer just worrying about maniacs. Most states issuing concealed carry licenses, mine included, require a brief session at the range and watching some of those novices is downright scary. The thought of them pulling a weapon while under extreme stress in a crowd and shooting is....terrifying.
 
If the people suddenly carrying firearms on Texas college campuses shoot sidearms as poorly as what I see at public shooting ranges the students are probably safer just worrying about maniacs. Most states issuing concealed carry licenses, mine included, require a brief session at the range and watching some of those novices is downright scary. The thought of them pulling a weapon while under extreme stress in a crowd and shooting is....terrifying.

More terrifying than the deranged gunman being the only armed person in the room?
 
The reality of the situation is actually allowing concealed carry on campus is a non-effect. You will not statistically see any increase or decrease in crime nor would you often find that one could stop the campus killer before he kills a lot of folk. People hell bent on killing a bunch of folk are most likely going to find the means by which to do so. At the same time, to keep and bear arms is a right and I'll allow anyone wishing to exercise the right just that. I think it's proper and dutiful to own weapons, to be proficient in them, to carry them on your person. Not everyone will...in fact on a college campus the vast majority won't. Which is why it's a non-issue. But it's still a good thing to do.

Took the words right out of my mouth.
 
Really? More mention of these mystical "stats" that you never seem able to produce? ...or did you actually plan on posting said stats at any point in time? Come on, Boo, you know how the debate game is played.

These are fairly widely known stats. But I'll give you some links:

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, a criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
Journal of Trauma, 1998

Stop Handgun Violence: The Facts

The largest category of firearms fatality is suicide, not homicide. In 1997, 54 percent of all gun deaths were suicides, and 42 percent were homicides.16

(snip)

Self Defense

For every time a gun in the home is used in a self-defense homicide, a gun will be used in�


1.3 unintentional deaths

4.6 criminal homicides

37 suicides22

VPC - Handgun Ban Fact Sheet

In 2007, there were 613 fatal firearm accidents in the United States, constituting 0.5% of 123,706 fatal accidents that year.[120]

(snip)

In 2007, there were roughly 15,698 emergency room visits for non-fatal firearm accidents . . . .

Gun Control

The last one, though hardly a non-biased site, clearly shows over 16,000 people shot themselves in 2007.
 
It's not a criticism as much as an observation. What are they possibly supposed to do about a deranged gunman walking into a building to shoot up the place, then kill themselves?

They can't be everywhere (nor would we want them to be).

They do get here pretty quick. We've timed it. Wehave an action plan btw, and with no one armed here. ;)
 
That still seems like too small an example, but I will look it up. And if Boulder is an exception, why do you think it is different?

See, here's the thing. You keep saying "it still seems like too small an example"; but it's larger than any example you've given. I have real data, you have supposition. Faced with that choice, I'm going with the measurement. You can wax philosophical all you want, but in the end everything comes down to measurement. I have it, you don't.

Boulder is different because I think they got themselves designated in a way where they can ban guns on their campus. I don't think they allow guns there. Which is good because if any sane person had a gun in that city, he'd shoot all those god damned trustafarians.

Not sure a gun does that. Many of us manage to defend ourselves just fine without a gun. And we ahve the added benefit of not shooting ourselves. ;)

The gun is a tool to do so. It can indeed be used for defense of life, liberty, and property particularly against agressive agents or even our own government should it be necessary.

That's what the guy who sells crack on the corner says. However, ignoring that little joke, as their silliness certainly could spill over into my life, I do have so reason to be concerned.

And when it does you can maybe say something. Before that point, mind your own damned business.

You're right to some degree. They don't get to decide. But this is their realm of expertise. So absent any siginificant statistical evidence, . . . yet . . . . it is good to hear what those who have some knowledge think.

Their realm of expertise is control over a populace. It's easier to control an unarmed populace than an armed one.
 
LOL, the bitterness of Colorado for its utter dependence on Texas never ceases to amaze. Just keep your slopes open, and we'll keep subsidizing your economy, as well as sending our developers out there to build stuff for you to work and live in.

Puh-leeze! I'm convinced that Colorado politicians bring Texans up here simply to drive slow on our streets and highways to keep the speeds down. Though, just because they are being told to drive slowly [allegedly] doesn't mean they have to drive like their mentally slow as well. Maybe it's the altitude that slows 'em down.
 
Puh-leeze! I'm convinced that Colorado politicians bring Texans up here simply to drive slow on our streets and highways to keep the speeds down. Though, just because they are being told to drive slowly [allegedly] doesn't mean they have to drive like their mentally slow as well. Maybe it's the altitude that slows 'em down.

They should allow us to openly hunt Texans and Californians in this state. Those folk...man they're they same; but they like to pretend they ain't.
 
Last edited:
See, here's the thing. You keep saying "it still seems like too small an example"; but it's larger than any example you've given. I have real data, you have supposition. Faced with that choice, I'm going with the measurement. You can wax philosophical all you want, but in the end everything comes down to measurement. I have it, you don't.

Boulder is different because I think they got themselves designated in a way where they can ban guns on their campus. I don't think they allow guns there. Which is good because if any sane person had a gun in that city, he'd shoot all those god damned trustafarians.

Not completely true. When I've given an example, it has been much larger. See the statisitcs I present above.

But, take your claim, I have been looking and as of yet have not found a link. I will keep looking.


The gun is a tool to do so. It can indeed be used for defense of life, liberty, and property particularly against agressive agents or even our own government should it be necessary.

Can be. Can also be used otherwise. Much like all tools. However, that really isn't the issue. There are limits to what we can carry no matter if we THINK it is needed for defense.


And when it does you can maybe say something. Before that point, mind your own damned business.

It is a matter of when and not if that it will intrude on someone's life.


Their realm of expertise is control over a populace. It's easier to control an unarmed populace than an armed one.

Frankly, today, the populaced cannot be armed enough to prevent control if that is what they wanted. At least the way I read your comment. But, for every day opperations, smooth traffic control, class atmosphere, peaceful protest, you may have a point. ;)
 
They should allow us to openly hunt Texans and Californians in this state. Those folk...man they're they same; but they like to pretend they ain't.

Ugh... don't get me started on the Californians! All I am saying is that there are mountains in California, so use them. Please.
 
Not completely true. When I've given an example, it has been much larger. See the statisitcs I present above.

But, take your claim, I have been looking and as of yet have not found a link. I will keep looking.

Those statistics are of general gun use and ownership. Not of realistic increased/decreased risks by allowing students to carry on campus. That's the data you need. What you really need is a school which allows guns and has a much higher (statistically significant) gun crime rate on campus than the surrounding area. Only, you won't find that for a few reasons. One is that there is a limited data set, the other is that students even when allowed to carry guns rarely do. The ones who do choose to carry are responsible with the care and use of their firearms on campus. For all the campuses across America which allow guns to be carried, none of them are having gun crime problems above the background. That's just simple fact. That's what you have to deal with.


Can be. Can also be used otherwise. Much like all tools. However, that really isn't the issue. There are limits to what we can carry no matter if we THINK it is needed for defense.

There are limits on what the government can restrict from us. No matter if we THINK it's necessary to ban.

It is a matter of when and not if that it will intrude on someone's life.

And when it happens you can do something. Our system of government force against the rights and liberties of the individual (force you wish to enact or keep present) is not proactive, it is reactive. Someone has to do something first.

Frankly, today, the populaced cannot be armed enough to prevent control if that is what they wanted. At least the way I read your comment. But, for every day opperations, smooth traffic control, class atmosphere, peaceful protest, you may have a point. ;)

That's more due to desire than ability. But we must retain the tools for revolt regardless. A people without the means of overthrowing their government are a people enslaved.
 
More terrifying than the deranged gunman being the only armed person in the room?

Most amateurs attempting to get a concealed weapon into play would more than likely turn what could be a hostage situation into a blood bath.

I'm not against concealed carry, I've been licensed for a long time, just pointing out the simple fact that most individuals aren't capable of effectively drawing a concealed weapon under stress and hitting anything smaller than the broad side of a barn. For some laughs visit a shooting range and watch a few classes for people qualifying for concealed carry licenses under controlled conditions. I can't remember the statistics but for many that'll be the last time they ever fire a weapon. Not unlike someone who has three hours of driving lessons on quiet streets and then being put in the middle of NASCAR race; a greater danger to everyone else than the race itself.
 
These are fairly widely known stats. But I'll give you some links:

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, a criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
Journal of Trauma, 1998

Stop Handgun Violence: The Facts

The largest category of firearms fatality is suicide, not homicide. In 1997, 54 percent of all gun deaths were suicides, and 42 percent were homicides.16

(snip)

Self Defense

For every time a gun in the home is used in a self-defense homicide, a gun will be used in�


1.3 unintentional deaths

4.6 criminal homicides

37 suicides22

VPC - Handgun Ban Fact Sheet

In 2007, there were 613 fatal firearm accidents in the United States, constituting 0.5% of 123,706 fatal accidents that year.[120]

(snip)

In 2007, there were roughly 15,698 emergency room visits for non-fatal firearm accidents . . . .

Gun Control

The last one, though hardly a non-biased site, clearly shows over 16,000 people shot themselves in 2007.

While none of those could be accused of being unbiased sites, their best evidence is not even close to being overwhelming. Guns constitute a half of a percent of the fatal accidents in the US? Wow…staggering. What are we doing to address the other, more pressing issues that are causing the other 99.5% of the fatalities in the country? Let’s take a look at those charts. We won’t even mention those horrendously dangerous vehicles. What about the people who are burned, suffocated or drowned? Hell, more people are killed by the environment than by gun accidents. Non-fatalities are the same story. Fire, water and the environment are ALL more dangerous than firearms.

At the same time, according to your own sources over 80 million Americans own at least one gun. If there were 613 accidents involving guns, which means that .000007% of gun owners were injured by their firearms. Not exactly the most threatening thing out there, now is it?

However,

A U.S. Justice Department study based on crime data from 1974-1985 found:

• 42% of Americans will be the victim of a completed violent crime (assault, robbery, rape) in the course of their lives

• 83% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime

• 52% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime more than once[24]

You tell me what you think is more likely, shooting yourself accidentally or being the victim of a violent crime?


A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

There are some statistics I can get behind.

Frankly, yes, guns are can be dangerous. Yes, people can injure themselves when they mishandle a gun. However, one of the things the anti-gun lobby seems to forget is that it’s entirely possible to handle a gun responsibly. A firearm is not something that requires a mystical level of training to be proficient in, it just takes some common sense and practice, just like everything else we learn to do. That’s no reason to restrict the access of law-abiding citizens
 
It's not a question of total percentage of accidents. What happens with other things is meaningless. The question was what is more likley to happen with a weapon and not how it compared to other things.

I used the last source for you, so you would accept the source biased your direction. Earlier in this thread someone dealt with the flaws in the numbers you're using. The biased site uses those numbers because it fits their POV. However, those are from a survey that only goes off what people say, not any verified information. As one source noted, those numbers are much too high when match against known crime statisitics. There are lots of reasons to doubt those numbers.

No, the numbers I quote are totals of actual deaths and sucides, and not some merely saying, yeah, I knew someone who committed sucide or shot themselves. Surely you can see the difference?
 
Most amateurs attempting to get a concealed weapon into play would more than likely turn what could be a hostage situation into a blood bath.

I'm not against concealed carry, I've been licensed for a long time, just pointing out the simple fact that most individuals aren't capable of effectively drawing a concealed weapon under stress and hitting anything smaller than the broad side of a barn. For some laughs visit a shooting range and watch a few classes for people qualifying for concealed carry licenses under controlled conditions. I can't remember the statistics but for many that'll be the last time they ever fire a weapon. Not unlike someone who has three hours of driving lessons on quiet streets and then being put in the middle of NASCAR race; a greater danger to everyone else than the race itself.

...and why should the fact that some people choose not further their training negatively impact those who do wish to carry responsibly. Should everyone be barred from racing in NASCAR because a few haven't taken the time to practice the track? There are already laws in place to address the impoper use of firearms. There need not be extra restrictions on those who do choose to be responsible gun owners.
 
Back
Top Bottom