• 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

LimeLight said:
So you teaching at a school and a police chief's opinion prove your argument and that self-defense doesn't justify the protection of a students constitutional right?
Click to expand...

?????

Drugs are bad OK.

The RIGHT isn't free of restrictions. There is little going on at any school that would require you need a gun for protection. And police have offered reasons why it would be a bad idea in a situation like VT.
 
Boo Radley said:
?????

Drugs are bad OK.

The RIGHT isn't free of restrictions. There is little going on at any school that would require you need a gun for protection. And police have offered reasons why it would be a bad idea in a situation like VT.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion. That doesn't justify infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.
 
Texas has some of the strangest and most irrational political priorities in America. This is a state faced with the largest budget deficit in the country ($27 billion) because it insists on such low tax rates, but rather than raising taxes on the state's wealthy - perish the thought! - they chose to eviscerate spending on education, Medicaid, and prisons. That isn't directly germane to this thread, but it certainly explains a lot about a state that considers it a priority to introduce guns on college campuses. That state has gotten by so far on the luck of fools, making one insane decision after another, but I don't see much of a future for Texas. It's going to become one great big Mad Max theme park.
 
Boo Radley said:
By all means, tell me the purpose. Where will you use the tool on campus.
Click to expand...

Self defense. It doesn't have to be a gun fight either. It could be assault or theft as well. Sexual assualts are not unknown on campuses across America. Another more basic reason is that it's a right, which means you have a right to keep and bear arms. Exercising a right is the perogative of the individual, there is worth in the exercise of rights. If you wish to infringe upon that, it's up to you to prove your case beyond assumption, supposition, and feelings.
 
Boo Radley said:
?????

Drugs are bad OK.

The RIGHT isn't free of restrictions. There is little going on at any school that would require you need a gun for protection. And police have offered reasons why it would be a bad idea in a situation like VT.
Click to expand...

The one restriction on rights is that you may not infringe upon the rights of others. Carrying a gun on campus does not innately infringe upon the rights of others. And appeal to authority is not necessarily the most logical of fallicies to make in this case. Of course the police don't want people to be armed. But when you need the police the most, they're 10 minutes away.
 
Ikari said:
The one restriction on rights is that you may not infringe upon the rights of others. Carrying a gun on campus does not innately infringe upon the rights of others. And appeal to authority is not necessarily the most logical of fallicies to make in this case. Of course the police don't want people to be armed. But when you need the police the most, they're 10 minutes away.
Click to expand...

Ex-cop agrees...
... at least 10 minutes away, like at VA tech and Columbine...
 
Jerry said:
I know it can be fun to say things like that, but if you can ever demonstrate how that might actually be fact, please let us know.
Click to expand...

Well, let's say I go out, buy a gun and shoot someone.

Let's even go further, say this person is my spouse. I fake a break-in, and claim it happened during a home-invasion. Now I must ask myself "what do I do with the gun?" it's the most damning piece of evidence. So, I think back. There is no record kept of me buying the gun. I don't have a license for it, actually, there's nothing connecting me with this gun except for fingerprints, which I can wipe away and then I may as well just drop the gun on the floor. I could even say that I hit the person who did it and they dropped the gun.

So, police investigate. They have the murder weapon, legally attained with ease, but absolutely no way of knowing who it belonged to.

On the gun-running thing, have a dozen people go around to different firearm stores and buy up a bunch of guns. Those guns have no connection to anyone, just toss 'em in the back of my van, set up a connection that needs a bulk number of untraceable firearms sold to them, and BAM!
 
SE102 said:
Deeper than a constitutional one?
Click to expand...

Essentially, yes. Any law curtailing a fundamental right is subject to strict judicial scrutiny. That means a legally compelling basis must be given to deny the right. Not a reasonable basis, or a good basis, but a compelling one. And moreover, there has to be no less intrusive alternative available.

A ban on guns in a college campus is not narrowly tailored to support the compelling government purpose of keeping college students safe. They are adults. I could see the argument if it was a high school, but it is not. There are other ways to accomplish the purpose of protecting the students, like a gun registration or something less intrusive than an out and out ban.

It doesn't matter if you think that a gun ban is a good idea, or even the safest idea. It is a fundamental right, so the standard by which you judge infringement is much higher.
 
TheBook said:
Well, let's say I go out, buy a gun and shoot someone.

Let's even go further, say this person is my spouse. I fake a break-in, and claim it happened during a home-invasion. Now I must ask myself "what do I do with the gun?" it's the most damning piece of evidence. So, I think back. There is no record kept of me buying the gun. I don't have a license for it, actually, there's nothing connecting me with this gun except for fingerprints, which I can wipe away and then I may as well just drop the gun on the floor. I could even say that I hit the person who did it and they dropped the gun.

So, police investigate. They have the murder weapon, legally attained with ease, but absolutely no way of knowing who it belonged to.

On the gun-running thing, have a dozen people go around to different firearm stores and buy up a bunch of guns. Those guns have no connection to anyone, just toss 'em in the back of my van, set up a connection that needs a bulk number of untraceable firearms sold to them, and BAM!
Click to expand...

The first thing the police will do is run your name with NCIS. They will find that a local dealer ran your name for the perches of a firearm.

If that's not enough to get a warrant for any receipts of firearms sold to you from that dealer, the police will give the weapon's serial # to it's manufacturer, who then tells them which licensed dealer it was sold to. The police go to that dealer with a warrant for the receipts for the sale, and find your signature and copy of your driver's license in the documentation of the firearm's sale.

This information exists whether the costumer has a CCW or not. The only thing a CCW does for the costumer while in the store is saving the costumer from a 3 day waiting period; a CCW holder can walk out the door with it.

***
SD law prevents anyone, especially the state, from keeping a list of who buys what, but a business still keeps copies of their own transactions.

Your fantasy does not exist.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
The one restriction on rights is that you may not infringe upon the rights of others. Carrying a gun on campus does not innately infringe upon the rights of others. And appeal to authority is not necessarily the most logical of fallicies to make in this case. Of course the police don't want people to be armed. But when you need the police the most, they're 10 minutes away.
Click to expand...

Where do you think I'm appealing to authority? I merely cited the ruling which said they did not strike down any cun control restrictions outside of those specific to the case, meaning all the other regulations stand until they don't. This is just the facts of the situation. So far we can have restrictions, including restrictions to place.

Just for information purposes:

Description of Appeal to Authority
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:


Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority
 
Ikari said:
Self defense. It doesn't have to be a gun fight either. It could be assault or theft as well. Sexual assualts are not unknown on campuses across America. Another more basic reason is that it's a right, which means you have a right to keep and bear arms. Exercising a right is the perogative of the individual, there is worth in the exercise of rights. If you wish to infringe upon that, it's up to you to prove your case beyond assumption, supposition, and feelings.
Click to expand...

Any evidence a gun would prevent those? As I understand most of these, they are not done violently. What I mean is the assults are usually more a date gone bad, too much drinking (those poor choices young adults make), taking something not yours, buit not armed robbery.

I see no evidence anyone needs a gun for protection. This is an area you could be seen making the affirmative claims, meaning the burden is yours.

Your rights are not being infringed upon. The right is not absolute, anywhere.
 
Boo Radley said:
Any evidence a gun would prevent those? As I understand most of these, they are not done violently. What I mean is the assults are usually more a date gone bad, too much drinking (those poor choices young adults make), taking something not yours, buit not armed robbery.

I see no evidence anyone needs a gun for protection. This is an area you could be seen making the affirmative claims, meaning the burden is yours.

Your rights are not being infringed upon. The right is not absolute, anywhere.
Click to expand...

Any evidence that it wouldn't? The fact of the matter is, people can choose to carry weapons or not. It's really up to them. However, given that there is still some amount of violent crime on campus; guns can be used by people to defend themselves from such attack. It's one reason why guns were made in the first place. My rights ARE being infringed upon. The one natural restriction to our rights is that we may not infringe upon the rights of others in the process. Any restriction outside of that IS an infringment. You want to infringe upon my rights without reason, without proof, without due process of law. That is what you really call for.

Carrying a gun on campus does not infringe upon the rights of others, it does not put others at measureably higher risk. That's that. Yet you still want to go beyond that because you think adults out there can't handle their rights and thus you think yourself grand puba of what rights people can use, when they can use them, and at what age they can be "trusted" with them. But adults are adults and legally we all have the same set of rights. It doesn't matter if you think they can't handle it, I've shown you one State in which they can. So obviously your stereotype doesn't hold up too well to reality. Regardless, when you want to use government force against the rights and liberties of the individual, to do so without reason, without proof, without the courts is nothing short of tyranny. You cannot carte blanch start restricting rights because you feel that other adults are not mature enough to handle their rights. Get over yourself, you ain't god.
 
Troubadour said:
Texas has some of the strangest and most irrational political priorities in America. This is a state faced with the largest budget deficit in the country ($27 billion) because it insists on such low tax rates, but rather than raising taxes on the state's wealthy - perish the thought! - they chose to eviscerate spending on education, Medicaid, and prisons. That isn't directly germane to this thread, but it certainly explains a lot about a state that considers it a priority to introduce guns on college campuses. That state has gotten by so far on the luck of fools, making one insane decision after another, but I don't see much of a future for Texas. It's going to become one great big Mad Max theme park.
Click to expand...

Allowing guns on campus doesn't cost the state anything :roll:
 
Ikari said:
Any evidence that it wouldn't? The fact of the matter is, people can choose to carry weapons or not. It's really up to them. However, given that there is still some amount of violent crime on campus; guns can be used by people to defend themselves from such attack. It's one reason why guns were made in the first place. My rights ARE being infringed upon. The one natural restriction to our rights is that we may not infringe upon the rights of others in the process. Any restriction outside of that IS an infringment. You want to infringe upon my rights without reason, without proof, without due process of law. That is what you really call for.

Carrying a gun on campus does not infringe upon the rights of others, it does not put others at measureably higher risk. That's that. Yet you still want to go beyond that because you think adults out there can't handle their rights and thus you think yourself grand puba of what rights people can use, when they can use them, and at what age they can be "trusted" with them. But adults are adults and legally we all have the same set of rights. It doesn't matter if you think they can't handle it, I've shown you one State in which they can. So obviously your stereotype doesn't hold up too well to reality. Regardless, when you want to use government force against the rights and liberties of the individual, to do so without reason, without proof, without the courts is nothing short of tyranny. You cannot carte blanch start restricting rights because you feel that other adults are not mature enough to handle their rights. Get over yourself, you ain't god.
Click to expand...

With out due process? Aren't the laws on the books part of the legal process?

It's clear young adults rountinely do not responsibily handle their rights. The auto industy knows this well, which is why they charge young adults more. And that is evidence to doubt young adults should be walking around schools with guns.

Schools are not that dangerous. If someone said no more guns for anyone. I woud join your objection. If someone said you can't take a gun hunting. I would object. If someone tried to take guns away from police or anyone doing anything risky and dangerous, that such a toolwould be needed, I would again join your objection. But to think you need a gun on a colllege campus is laughable, and potentially risky. It is one thing to walk through the valley of the shadow of death and show no fear, but to be unable to cross a college campus with a gun? That's just silly. One isn't needed.
 
TheBook said:
I've shown evidence. Twice. It was ignored both times.



Basically, the argument that guns make people safer is NOT shown by this data. The argument that being restrictive about them isn't either.
Click to expand...

so given its a draw-freedom trumps any other argument

funny how so few cops go unarmed though

wonder if they know something you don't
 
Troubadour said:
Other than its rapidly-diminishing supply of credibility.
Click to expand...

wow that is as stupid a response as it is not relevant. how would that cause less credibility?
 
Boo Radley said:
With out due process? Aren't the laws on the books part of the legal process?
Click to expand...

You cannot make laws which strip away rights. For instance, you cannot claim that the open practice of Christianity is illegal and make a law against it. It's not due process, you can't say "well it's a law, so that's due process". The only just way to strip one of their ability to exercise their rights is through the court system, by being brought before a judge and jury.

Boo Radley said:
It's clear young adults rountinely do not responsibily handle their rights. The auto industy knows this well, which is why they charge young adults more. And that is evidence to doubt young adults should be walking around schools with guns.
Click to expand...

Evidence to doubt, but you need beyond a reasonable doubt to strip and adult of their ability to exercise their rights. As I have said, what you claim is not the case in reality. What you claim is just what you thought up in your mind taking apparently standard Animal House stereotypes and applying it to everyone. With no thought about who would or wouldn't carry a gun even if it were allowed, the probabilities at stake, and the ability of people who would choose to carry a gun to do so rationally and maturely.

Boo Radley said:
Schools are not that dangerous. If someone said no more guns for anyone. I woud join your objection. If someone said you can't take a gun hunting. I would object. If someone tried to take guns away from police or anyone doing anything risky and dangerous, that such a toolwould be needed, I would again join your objection. But to think you need a gun on a colllege campus is laughable, and potentially risky. It is one thing to walk through the valley of the shadow of death and show no fear, but to be unable to cross a college campus with a gun? That's just silly. One isn't needed.
Click to expand...

Some schools can be very dangerous. Hell, even at my school which is in a relatively safe portion of the US, there are quite a number of sexual assaults and robberies and such. An adult has the right to defend themselves against these acts and to the tools by which he can do so. Guns are one form of tool. You want to strip away the rights of adults with no real proof. It's all "one isn't needed" "schools are not that dangerous" blah blah blah. It's all crap because all of that are ASSUMPTIONS and SUPPOSITIONS on YOUR part. You still have yet to PROVE anything. Any time now, we're waiting.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's clear young adults rountinely do not responsibily handle their rights. The auto industy knows this well, which is why they charge young adults more. And that is evidence to doubt young adults should be walking around schools with guns.
Click to expand...

So you would agree, then, that people over a certain age should be allowed to carry on campus, as your concern for 'young adult immaturity' would no longer be an issue.

Boo Radley said:
But to think you need a gun on a colllege campus is laughable, and potentially risky. It is one thing to walk through the valley of the shadow of death and show no fear, but to be unable to cross a college campus with a gun? That's just silly. One isn't needed.
Click to expand...

You've already expressed this many times, and I appreciate your opinion, but on what data to base your position? Do you have real examples of schools which allow firearms and have an increased crime rate? Have you reviewed the history of public education before firearms were banned and noted a drop in gun-related crime with the passing of a ban?


***
As a sidebar, I'm a person who frequently packs things I don't obviously need so that I am prepared for the rare occurrence. For example;
  • I keep a full set (5) of uniform patches in the left arm pocket of my ACUs. I've only had to use the spare flag, and then only once, but u never know.
  • I keep my cell-phone charger in my right calf pocket even-though I know I'll be able to go back to my room and charge it long before the battery runs out.
  • I have a phone card in my wallet with important phone numbers taped to it even-though I have a cell.
  • I have a bag of salt, cat litter, anti-freeze, quart of oil, snow shovel, liter of water and a sleeping bag in the trunk of my car, in addition to the spare tire and cables.

So, to me, carrying a gun to class is like carrying my molti-tool to class, which I do. I don't expect to have to fix anything in class, but I'm not focused only on my class. These are things I need in my life regardless of where I am or what I'm doing, because my circumstances change as the day goes by. Lacking a crystal ball, I don't know what life is going to toss at me, so I try to prepare and be ready to improvise, adapt and overcome.
 
Jerry said:
So you would agree, then, that people over a certain age should be allowed to carry on campus, as your concern for 'young adult immaturity' would no longer be an issue.
Click to expand...

No. But it would less a safety issue. The second part of my issue is there is no place for the tool to be used on campus. It's funny to hear anyone think they need a gun on campus.

You've already expressed this many times, and I appreciate your opinion, but on what data to base your position? Do you have real examples of schools which allow firearms and have an increased crime rate? Have you reviewed the history of public education before firearms were banned and noted a drop in gun-related crime with the passing of a ban?
Click to expand...

Again, the majority of college students are younger than 27, mid to lower twenties. So, the likelihood of trouble is high. That said, there would be studies as there is no wide spread group to study. Most studies I know of do not prove we are safer armed. They don't prove we're less safe either (the actual point of your Harvard study). I will never understand anyone feeling the need the need to carry a gun around who is not involved in some risky endeavor. And yes, I ahve to admit, I think it says something disconcerting about the person overall. Most of us live just fine without one. Most of us are not victims, and do not see any serious problems without one.

***
As a sidebar, I'm a person who frequently packs things I don't obviously need so that I am prepared for the rare occurrence. For example;
  • I keep a full set (5) of uniform patches in the left arm pocket of my ACUs. I've only had to use the spare flag, and then only once, but u never know.
  • I keep my cell-phone charger in my right calf pocket even-though I know I'll be able to go back to my room and charge it long before the battery runs out.
  • I have a phone card in my wallet with important phone numbers taped to it even-though I have a cell.
  • I have a bag of salt, cat litter, anti-freeze, quart of oil, snow shovel, liter of water and a sleeping bag in the trunk of my car, in addition to the spare tire and cables.

So, to me, carrying a gun to class is like carrying my molti-tool to class, which I do. I don't expect to have to fix anything in class, but I'm not focused only on my class. These are things I need in my life regardless of where I am or what I'm doing, because my circumstances change as the day goes by. Lacking a crystal ball, I don't know what life is going to toss at me, so I try to prepare and be ready to improvise, adapt and overcome.
Click to expand...

I understand. My wife is more like that. I'm not. I do just fine with whatever I have around me. But I understand being prepared. I just see too few circumstances where you would actually need a weapon. And my experience tells me we shoot ourselves more than anything else (and I think the numbers support that as well). Sometimes, when we over do something, we actually cause more problems than we prevent. Guns are simply not needed everywhere. On campus, you won't be hunting bear. You won't run in to a band of Bandits or wild mongolian raiders. Students go to class daily and nothing happens to them. They get into more trouble drinking off campus.

There is just no palce for a weapon on campus.
 
Jerry said:
If you ever discover a fact-based argument you would like to offer, please do so.
Click to expand...

Gun issues aren't based on facts for either side. Some people just fetishize the idea of guns, and others have a (far more rational) aversion to being surrounded by them. If I showed a study that argued for gun control, gun lobbyists would just say it doesn't matter because 18th century farmers thought everyone should have the right to a single-shot barrel-loaded musket. And there are other studies that argue against gun control, but they don't change the fact that I and many others find the idea of turning our communities into armed camps to be the opposite of liberating.

Texas is not trying to put guns on college campuses because they sat down with the data and made a high-minded analysis about what would be best for college students, they just like guns, like the idea of guns being everywhere, and enjoy trying to push them into places that have traditionally resisted them. That's all there is to it. It's a bad state that does a lot of bad, dehumanizing things to its people, and it goes further through the Looking Glass every day.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
You cannot make laws which strip away rights. For instance, you cannot claim that the open practice of Christianity is illegal and make a law against it. It's not due process, you can't say "well it's a law, so that's due process". The only just way to strip one of their ability to exercise their rights is through the court system, by being brought before a judge and jury.
Click to expand...

What I'm trying to say is I believe you misunderstand the right. It is not absolute. It can be restricted and has been since the first days of this country.


Evidence to doubt, but you need beyond a reasonable doubt to strip and adult of their ability to exercise their rights. As I have said, what you claim is not the case in reality. What you claim is just what you thought up in your mind taking apparently standard Animal House stereotypes and applying it to everyone. With no thought about who would or wouldn't carry a gun even if it were allowed, the probabilities at stake, and the ability of people who would choose to carry a gun to do so rationally and maturely.
Click to expand...

I think it is beyond reasonable doubt. We know with almost certainty that sooner or later someone will make a mistake. The history is fairly clear on this and the maturity level.



Some schools can be very dangerous. Hell, even at my school which is in a relatively safe portion of the US, there are quite a number of sexual assaults and robberies and such. An adult has the right to defend themselves against these acts and to the tools by which he can do so. Guns are one form of tool. You want to strip away the rights of adults with no real proof. It's all "one isn't needed" "schools are not that dangerous" blah blah blah. It's all crap because all of that are ASSUMPTIONS and SUPPOSITIONS on YOUR part. You still have yet to PROVE anything. Any time now, we're waiting.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I taught at a school voted the second most violent campus in America. And the need never came up for anyone to need a gun. To be honest, I think it so clear, so rooted in commone sense that asking for proof is like asking for proof that driving drunk is a bad idea. But, I have given proof of the maturity level, and I see no evidence of anyone needing a gun on campus.
 
Boo Radley said:
No. But it would less a safety issue. The second part of my issue is there is no place for the tool to be used on campus. It's funny to hear anyone think they need a gun on campus.
Click to expand...

I'm sure others will point to collage rape, Virginia Tech, and the right of everyone to have a firearms in their home (and should therefore be allowed to have a firearm if they live on campus) so I'll go another direction.

If I understand you correctly, no one should bring anything to class they're not going to use. What I would like to know is, if it's not disruptive and it's not going to harm you, why should you care?

Boo Radley said:
Again, the majority of college students are younger than 27, mid to lower twenties. So, the likelihood of trouble is high. That said, there would be studies as there is no wide spread group to study. Most studies I know of do not prove we are safer armed. They don't prove we're less safe either (the actual point of your Harvard study). I will never understand anyone feeling the need the need to carry a gun around who is not involved in some risky endeavor. And yes, I ahve to admit, I think it says something disconcerting about the person overall. Most of us live just fine without one. Most of us are not victims, and do not see any serious problems without one.
Click to expand...

The data presented in the Harvard study showed exactly that, though, as did my other source. Even if you don't personally carry, you are safer when you are in an armed population.

Boo Radley said:
I understand. My wife is more like that. I'm not. I do just fine with whatever I have around me. But I understand being prepared. I just see too few circumstances where you would actually need a weapon. And my experience tells me we shoot ourselves more than anything else (and I think the numbers support that as well). Sometimes, when we over do something, we actually cause more problems than we prevent. Guns are simply not needed everywhere. On campus, you won't be hunting bear. You won't run in to a band of Bandits or wild mongolian raiders. Students go to class daily and nothing happens to them. They get into more trouble drinking off campus.
Click to expand...

Well to be fair I don't think anyone will be hunting bear with the class of weapons we're talking about. My concealed carry is a snub-nosed .38 revolver, good only at near point-blank range. It's the 3" folding knife of firearms. I also carry a 3" folding knife.

Boo Radley said:
There is just no palce for a weapon on campus.
Click to expand...

In fact, there are a number of ways to carry concealed :peace

True story: At Dakota Tech I wore a blue rubber training pistol in a CCW holster (inside the waistband, t-shirt untucked, for those curious) for a couple weeks. No one ever noticed, or if they did, they didn't care. I would assume that if anyone thought I was carrying a real firearm that they would have said something either to me or to the proper authorities. If they held my political opinion on the matter, they would at least ask why I was carrying a trainer in due coarse of making small-talk.
 
This is a joke right? Please tell me it's a joke.

What next? "Texas legalizes consensual sex between minors and adults"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom