• 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

Guns serve no purpose on the college campus.

The same thing over and over. But guns could indeed have a purpose on the college campus to stop assualts, rapes, robbery, etc. These things DO occur on college campuses across America.
 
The same thing over and over. But guns could indeed have a purpose on the college campus to stop assualts, rapes, robbery, etc. These things DO occur on college campuses across America.

First, those don't happen to any real degree. The rapes are off campus, at parties and such. Not in the classroom, not in the library. You're making a problem where there isn't one. So no, it is not needed on campus.
 
What if I rode a skateboard everyday? When I take my seat, can't I just put it out of the way?



Sure, absolutely. The car's purpose is for something outside of the classroom, but we need to bring it with us in order for it to be available when we're not in the classroom.

Leave it outside, off campus preferably. ;)
 
Not needed on campus. Nothing to defend yourself from. There is no real threat on campus.

Cho.jpg

.
.
.
.
 

That's been addressed already. One, it is extremely rare. Second, most experts don't believe students being armed woudl have stopped it. Someone on side of the argument mentions that above. Fear makes people do stupid things. Increasing the risk because your afraid is neither wise or safe.
 
First, those don't happen to any real degree. The rapes are off campus, at parties and such. Not in the classroom, not in the library. You're making a problem where there isn't one. So no, it is not needed on campus.

That's still YOUR OPINION. For the love of all that is holy, you keep saying this, but it's nothing more than you're opinion. And then you have the gall to claim there is no assault, robbery, or rape on campus. Why the hell do you think they put the emergency police contact stations all over campus? Because there was no violent crime there ever and they just wanted something to look good? I think there is a need for guns on campus. There. Now why should your opinion win out over mine? What right do you have to tell me how and where I can exercise my rights without courts, without due process, with nothing more than your opinion, no data, supposition, assumption, and hyperbole to back up what you claim. Why is any of that good enough to infringe upon rights?

Guns are needed on campus.
 
That's been addressed already. One, it is extremely rare. Second, most experts don't believe students being armed woudl have stopped it. Someone on side of the argument mentions that above. Fear makes people do stupid things. Increasing the risk because your afraid is neither wise or safe.

Most experts don't believe. You see a problem with that? Fear does make people do stupid things, when TSA is disbanded we can come back and talk about this. As it stands to keep and bear arms is a right of the individual. Universities which already have concealed weapons allowed have no increased problems with gun violence. Yet here you are with "believes" and "I think" and somehow all of that is supposed to be proper argument to infringe upon the rights of the individual. You somehow miss the DANGER in your own statements and what you wish to allow government to do.

Yeah, chances are if guns are allowed on campus you don't stop the random lone gunman because it requires someone to be in the right place at the right time with a gun, and most students regardless of ability will not carry a gun. But I'd much prefer the chance to defend myself SHOULD something happen. Instead of sitting there with a gun in my face hoping that Boo comes out of nowhere with the police to save me. All those dead students, and you wouldn't even consider giving ONE of them a chance. Because of your IRRATIONAL FEAR of guns and UNSUPPORTED arguments against the exercise of a right. For shame.
 
That's still YOUR OPINION. For the love of all that is holy, you keep saying this, but it's nothing more than you're opinion. And then you have the gall to claim there is no assault, robbery, or rape on campus. Why the hell do you think they put the emergency police contact stations all over campus? Because there was no violent crime there ever and they just wanted something to look good? I think there is a need for guns on campus. There. Now why should your opinion win out over mine? What right do you have to tell me how and where I can exercise my rights without courts, without due process, with nothing more than your opinion, no data, supposition, assumption, and hyperbole to back up what you claim. Why is any of that good enough to infringe upon rights?

Guns are needed on campus.

First, opinions are not bad words. Your OPINION that they are needed is an opinion as well.

However, I have a little more than opinion.

Besides having offered police chiefs and administrations on the subject, let me add this:

School shootings have high profile but occur infrequently
March 25, 1998
Web posted at: 11:01 p.m. EST (0401 GMT)
(CNN) -- While there have been several school shootings in the news this school year, they are still relatively rare, according to recent Department of Education statistics.

In a report issued in March, the department reports that 10 percent of public schools reported one or more serious violent crimes during the 1996-97 school year. The figure was 8 percent for rural schools such as the middle school in Jonesboro, Arkansas.

CNN - School shootings have high profile but occur infrequently - March 25, 1998

Those include HS and middle schools. Rareer still would be colleges.

Homicide is the second most common cause of death among children 5-18 years of age. But the study points out that less than 1% of all youth homicides occur at school.

CDC: School Homicides Are Rare

Despite a heightened awareness of violent crime on campus, national and state statistics show that colleges are statistically safer than society in general. A recent Department of Justice study has concluded that college students are actually less likely to be victims of sexual assault and other violent crimes than non-students of a similar age. The difference for 18- to 24-year-olds on campus, according to the DOJ study, was 68 victimizations per 1,000 students annually compared to 82 victimizations per 1,000 for non-students.

Violent crimes on college campuses are relatively rare - Kingsport Times-News Online

Now if we think, adding guns would only add to the risk. A low risk now becomes a greater risk. Yes, we do have to think, as we don't have a large enough populas to study. So, we ahve to look at overall gun statisitcs,which show a number of accidents, look at average student irresponisibility, and make a judgement (called critical thinking). doing so is not wrong, or improper in a discussion.
 

First, I not against guns. Just against them on campus.

Second from your own link:

Yet the crime rate is over two times less on college campuses than for the entire United States. For the other violent crimes, the U.S. crime rates are exponentially more than the college crime rates. What this shows is that the college campus is a safe place for students to be living and receiving their education when compared with off campus.

Third, your other two links are vague and not something we can examine close enough. They could include a large number of seriously minor offenses, not somehting any reasonable would use a gun to address.
 
First, I not against guns. Just against them on campus.

I said anti-2nd amendment. I am well aware that you like to use a hunting trip you did 30 or 40 years ago to somehow prove you like guns.


Second from your own link:

Yet the crime rate is over two times less on college campuses than for the entire United States. For the other violent crimes, the U.S. crime rates are exponentially more than the college crime rates. What this shows is that the college campus is a safe place for students to be living and receiving their education when compared with off campus.

Third, your other two links are vague and not something we can examine close enough. They could include a large number of seriously minor offenses,

It is still false to say there is nothing to defend your self against.

not somehting any reasonable would use a gun to address.

You don't think rape and assault are something a reasonable person would use a gun to defend themselves against?
 
I said anti-2nd amendment. I am well aware that you like to use a hunting trip you did 30 or 40 years ago to somehow prove you like guns.

Not anti-second amendment either. It just isn't as absolute as some think it is. Some restriction is allowed.



It is still false to say there is nothing to defend your self against.

No, not in the context I use it. The risk is not great enough to warrant having a gun on campus, which would likely represent a larger risk.


You don't think rape and assault are something a reasonable person would use a gun to defend themselves against?

Rape is more easily defined; however, your source uses something less specific. We need the term defined as to what they mean in their numbers. Did I insult someone sexually, which might require a slap in the face or a formal complain, but not a gun. I suggest you're using the numbers to say something they are not saying.
 
Leave it outside, off campus preferably. ;)

Actually we're free to bring them in...the skateboards, that is....even though they have no purpose in the classroom. We bring a lot of things on out person which do not serve an immediate purpose in a given classroom, including textbooks of other classes, so really the whole notion that something doesn't belong if it's not for that class is just silliness.
 
Actually we're free to bring them in...the skateboards, that is....even though they have no purpose in the classroom. We bring a lot of things on out person which do not serve an immediate purpose in a given classroom, including textbooks of other classes, so really the whole notion that something doesn't belong if it's not for that class is just silliness.

And no risk. Keep in mind the two point arguement. Needless risk.
 
Not anti-second amendment either.

That is a lie.

It just isn't as absolute as some think it is. Some restriction is allowed.

What kind of restrictions? Waiting periods, licenses/permits, registrations, excessive taxes and etc?



No, not in the context I use it. The risk is not great enough to warrant having a gun on campus, which would likely represent a larger risk.

The risk is not great enough to warrant having restrictions on the 2nd amendment, but yet you people seek to impose all sorts of restrictions that violate the 2nd amendment.


Rape is more easily defined; however, your source uses something less specific. We need the term defined as to what they mean in their numbers. Did I insult someone sexually, which might require a slap in the face or a formal complain, but not a gun. I suggest you're using the numbers to say something they are not saying.

Again do you think rape and assault are something that one should be able to use a gun to defend themselves with?
 
Last edited:
Have you guys been on a college campus recently? Specifically a non-commuter school with a large student population living on campus? Maybe this comes as a shock to some people, but college students like to drink alcohol...a lot. And at that age, they're often relatively new to alcohol and don't know their limits. Do you really want people to have guns in close proximity after they've just consumed 8 beers and are acting belligerent?

Typical liberal bull****.
 
Not anti-second amendment either. It just isn't as absolute as some think it is. Some restriction is allowed.

There are some restrictions. However, you somehow got it in your skull that because there are restrictions, you can now place further restrictions WITHOUT CAUSE. That's the end all be all to this. But to keep and bear arms is still a RIGHT. Which means that if you want to infringe upon it, you have to have JUST CAUSE. You have to have DATA, you have to have PROPER ARGUMENT. But you have none of that. You have opinion, that's it. Even the links and quotes you provide are OPINION. None of it is based in fact or measurable data.

So why is it that YOUR opinion is right and mine is wrong? Why do we have to listen to YOUR opinion on the restriction of rights without proof? You keep saying they're not needed, but that's not true. There could be many situations on campus where they could be needed. You keep saying it's a risk, but that's not true. I've already given you REAL WORLD DATA that shows that there is no increase to the overall, aggregated risk. You have no proof, you have no data, you have no quantifiable variable by which you can make a proper argument for restrictions of a right. Just because there are restrictions does not mean you can place restrictions without cause. You must still provide PROOF. Until that point it is only opinion. And in this country, only opinion cannot be used to infringe upon the free exercise of a right.

You want to say that my statement that guns are needed on campus is an opinion. OK, well let's start there and look at the reality of our arguments. They're both opinions. But you want to use your opinion to elicit government force against the free exercise of a right. I want to use my opinion to remove government force against the free exercise of a right until proof can be shown to properly argue for the restriction. That's where we're at, whether you want to accept it or not. Rights are to be upheld to their highest, it is the way in which we maximize freedom; freedom being the goal. You cannot infringe upon the exercise of a right without proof. Not justly, not properly, and not without the use of tyranny. I will not support tyranny. If you think it's such a risk, you should be able to prove it. Not all Universities allow guns on campus, but a non-zero number do. So from that number, which University has a much higher risk of gun violence on campus? Can you even answer the question.

Yes, you're going to have to think about it. Yes, you're going to have to do a bit of research on it. But burden of proof is on YOU because you're the one looking to restrict a right. So gather the numbers, come back and tell me what you found.
 
Before any liberals who want to ban guns come into this thread, you should know that you are six times more likely to get mugged in London where guns are banned) than in New York City, and that burglars claim that they fear armed home owners more than they do the police, and in England the burglar rate is 53% higher than America (which has a burglar percent of 13%): BBC NEWS | UK | Why Britain needs more guns
 
Last edited:
There are some restrictions. However, you somehow got it in your skull that because there are restrictions, you can now place further restrictions WITHOUT CAUSE. That's the end all be all to this. But to keep and bear arms is still a RIGHT. Which means that if you want to infringe upon it, you have to have JUST CAUSE. You have to have DATA, you have to have PROPER ARGUMENT. But you have none of that. You have opinion, that's it. Even the links and quotes you provide are OPINION. None of it is based in fact or measurable data.

So why is it that YOUR opinion is right and mine is wrong? Why do we have to listen to YOUR opinion on the restriction of rights without proof? You keep saying they're not needed, but that's not true. There could be many situations on campus where they could be needed. You keep saying it's a risk, but that's not true. I've already given you REAL WORLD DATA that shows that there is no increase to the overall, aggregated risk. You have no proof, you have no data, you have no quantifiable variable by which you can make a proper argument for restrictions of a right. Just because there are restrictions does not mean you can place restrictions without cause. You must still provide PROOF. Until that point it is only opinion. And in this country, only opinion cannot be used to infringe upon the free exercise of a right.

You want to say that my statement that guns are needed on campus is an opinion. OK, well let's start there and look at the reality of our arguments. They're both opinions. But you want to use your opinion to elicit government force against the free exercise of a right. I want to use my opinion to remove government force against the free exercise of a right until proof can be shown to properly argue for the restriction. That's where we're at, whether you want to accept it or not. Rights are to be upheld to their highest, it is the way in which we maximize freedom; freedom being the goal. You cannot infringe upon the exercise of a right without proof. Not justly, not properly, and not without the use of tyranny. I will not support tyranny. If you think it's such a risk, you should be able to prove it. Not all Universities allow guns on campus, but a non-zero number do. So from that number, which University has a much higher risk of gun violence on campus? Can you even answer the question.

Yes, you're going to have to think about it. Yes, you're going to have to do a bit of research on it. But burden of proof is on YOU because you're the one looking to restrict a right. So gather the numbers, come back and tell me what you found.

As this restriction has been here, there is no further restriction. It's not a new one.

And no, I have no problem with opinions. It's not a bad word to me. However, I gave specific information that related to my opinion. College campus are actually safer than the rest of the nation on the whole, but a good margin. And little to nothing dangerous is going on in the classroom to require the need for guns. Actual rape is not happening in the classroom during class. No gun is needed.

Bring one to the classroom where one wasn't before has to increase the risk just as introducing cars where there were nto cars before increases the risk. Without a specific and demonstative reason for the risk, the risk has to be viewed as needless.
 
That is a lie.

:roll: :coffeepap

What kind of restrictions? Waiting periods, licenses/permits, registrations, . . . . taxes and etc?

Check you state and federal laws, there are restrictions, and even restrictions as to where you can carry, and have been for as long as either of us have been alive.



The risk is not great enough to warrant having restrictions on the 2nd amendment, but yet you people seek to impose all sorts of restrictions that violate the 2nd amendment.

I disagree on tow counts: 1) it does not violate the 2nd amendment, and 2) there is no need for the risk.


Again do you think rape and assault are something that one should be able to use a gun to defend themselves with?

Side steps the point, rape isn't happening in the classroom, and no, not all assults require a gun, which is why we need more information as to what we're talking about.
 
As this restriction has been here, there is no further restriction. It's not a new one.

And no, I have no problem with opinions. It's not a bad word to me. However, I gave specific information that related to my opinion. College campus are actually safer than the rest of the nation on the whole, but a good margin. And little to nothing dangerous is going on in the classroom to require the need for guns. Actual rape is not happening in the classroom during class. No gun is needed.

Bring one to the classroom where one wasn't before has to increase the risk just as introducing cars where there were nto cars before increases the risk. Without a specific and demonstative reason for the risk, the risk has to be viewed as needless.

You keep saying this, but have proven no risk. Did you do what I asked you since you're the one against the free exercise of a right? Did you look up the statistics for Universities with gun policies (allowing)? What did you find? Can you quantify the risk or are you still on the side of restriction without cause?
 
And no risk. Keep in mind the two point arguement. Needless risk.

You haven't demonstrated this risk, therefore it doesn't exist.

In fact, according to the mountain of evidence myself and others have provided, the lack of firearms is the risk. You haven't justified why you support this public hazard.
 
You haven't demonstrated this risk, therefore it doesn't exist.

In fact, according to the mountain of evidence myself and others have provided, the lack of firearms is the risk. You haven't justified why you support this public hazard.

Haven't I? We see the stats that people have accidents with guns. They do accidently shoot them selves and others. Logically, any time you increase the number of risky rehaviors and tools, you increase the risk. More cars on the road increases the risk of accident. And more guns on campus increases the risk of an accidental shooting. This is not all that debatable.
 
You keep saying this, but have proven no risk. Did you do what I asked you since you're the one against the free exercise of a right? Did you look up the statistics for Universities with gun policies (allowing)? What did you find? Can you quantify the risk or are you still on the side of restriction without cause?

Read above. I actually have. And risky behavior that is increased increases risk. And we have establish a certain amount of risk to having a gun. There are accidents with guns.
 
Back
Top Bottom