• 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

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,259
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Texas poised to pass bill allowing guns on campus

ap080403036330.jpg


AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas is preparing to give college students and professors the right to carry guns on campus, adding momentum to a national campaign to open this part of society to firearms.

More than half the members of the Texas House have signed on as co-authors of a measure directing universities to allow concealed handguns. The Senate passed a similar bill in 2009 and is expected to do so again. Republican Gov. Rick Perry, who sometimes packs a pistol when he jogs, has said he's in favor of the idea.

~snip~

Similar firearms measures have been proposed in about a dozen other states, but all face strong opposition, especially from college leaders. In Oklahoma, all 25 public college and university presidents declared their opposition to a concealed carry proposal.

"There is no scenario where allowing concealed weapons on college campuses will do anything other than create a more dangerous environment for students, faculty, staff and visitors," Oklahoma Chancellor of Higher Education Glen Johnson said in January.

University of Texas President William Powers has opposed concealed handguns on campus, saying the mix of students, guns and campus parties is too volatile.
Allowing firearms on campus can only be a good thing.

EDITORIAL: Guns decrease murder rates
In Washington, the best defense is self-defense
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES


More guns in law-abiding hands mean less crime. The District of Columbia proves the point.

<snip>

Few who lived in Washington during the 1970s can forget the upswing in crime that started right after the ban was originally passed. In the five years before the 1977 ban, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 murders per 100,000. In the five years after the gun ban went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. One fact is particularly hard to ignore: D.C.'s murder rate fluctuated after 1976 but only once fell below what it was in 1976 before the ban. That aberration happened years later, in 1985.

This correlation between the D.C. gun ban and diminished safety was not a coincidence. Look at the Windy City. Immediately after Chicago banned handguns in 1982, the murder rate, which had been falling almost continually for a decade, started to rise. Chicago's murder rate rose relative to other large cities as well. The phenomenon of higher murder rates after gun bans are passed is not just limited to the United States. Every single time a country has passed a gun ban, its murder rate soared.


<snip>


Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive
Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?
A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.
Din B. Kates* and Gary Mauser**


The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population)
.


Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Criminals generally want easy targets. Having a gun makes you a harder target. When you're in a population which carries, you are safer even if you don't carry a gun yourself, because a criminal has no way of knowing if you're carrying concealed or not and doesn't want to risk finding out the hard way.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

~snip~

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."

~snip~

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
Pistol: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
Rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
Automatic rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
Grenade launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Patriot missile battery: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Nuclear warheads: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.

Tanks are not weapons. Tanks are vehicles weapons can be mounted in, but anyone with enough money to buy one can own one. That doesn't mean you can have a functioning cannon, 50cal machine gun, 2 saw machine guns, or grenades...it means you can ave the tank and the tank only.

You can own a black hawk helicopter, also...doesn't mean you can have the twin mini-guns.

***
We're talking about citizens 21 years of age and older, who also have a CCW, carrying a pistol on campus.
 
Last edited:
This will just make guns legal on campus. Guns have been on campuses for years.
 
This is good news. I hope this is passed and that it continues to spread.
 
:shock:

I just heard AZ is talking of loosening gun laws too.
 
I'm conflicted on this one. Young people don't always show the best judgment.

I worry about people who have no training in gun safety getting hurt of hurting someone else unintentionally.

I have the same concerns about adults.

If they know what they are doing, No problem.
 
I'm conflicted on this one. Young people don't always show the best judgment.

I worry about people who have no training in gun safety getting hurt of hurting someone else unintentionally.

I have the same concerns about adults.

If they know what they are doing, No problem.

Do we know if proper training won't be a requirement?

If it's not, I'm with you.
 
I'm conflicted on this one. Young people don't always show the best judgment.

They're the same age as professional soldiers. Once a person becomes an adult, we have to accept that they are responsible for their own behavior.
 
What are the rules of engagement? If someone else flashes theirs first does that make them the starter of the firefight? Is it illegal to duel? What can't I do with my gun?
 
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?
 
Last edited:
I'm conflicted on this one. Young people don't always show the best judgment.

I worry about people who have no training in gun safety getting hurt of hurting someone else unintentionally.

I have the same concerns about adults.

If they know what they are doing, No problem.

If you can't trust a 21 y/o with a pistol in peaceful environment, how can you trust an 18 y/o with a missile in a combat zone?

Many states require a class and range qualification before issuing a CCW. As it happens, my state only requires a background check and $10. However, if my state decided to require a class I wouldn't object to it.
 
I'm conflicted on this one. Young people don't always show the best judgment.

I worry about people who have no training in gun safety getting hurt of hurting someone else unintentionally.

I have the same concerns about adults.

If they know what they are doing, No problem.

Here ya go. I feel better. How about you:)

For concealed carry in texas. You also have to be 21(1) a completed application on a form provided by the department
that requires only the information listed in Subsection (b);
(2) two recent color passport photographs of the applicant;
(3) a certified copy of the applicant's birth certificate or certified
proof of age;
(4) proof of residency in this state;
(5) two complete sets of legible and classifiable fingerprints of the
applicant taken by a person appropriately trained in recording fingerprints
who is employed by a law enforcement agency or by a private
entity designated by a law enforcement agency as an entity qualified
to take fingerprints of an applicant for a license under this subchapter;
(6) a nonrefundable application and license fee of $140 paid to
the department;
(7) a handgun proficiency certificate described by Section
411.189;
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/tchlaws0102.pdf
 
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?

Yes. Yes I do. I want that precisely because liquor, for some ungodly reason, is allowed on campus at all, motivating crime. The booz-culture cannot be permitted to continue imposing crime on the student body.

Liquor has killed more collage students then firearms. Prove me wrong.
 
If you can't trust a 21 y/o with a pistol in peaceful environment, how can you trust an 18 y/o with a missile in a combat zone?

Many states require a class and range qualification before issuing a CCW. As it happens, my state only requires a background check and $10. However, if my state decided to require a class I wouldn't object to it.

The 18 year old with a missile in a combat zone can be trusted because he's had training.

I don't think this is a good idea as if fights are started they very well may quickly become deadly. A student shouldn't be allowed to have a gun without proper training and they must have a cool head.
 
The 18 year old with a missile in a combat zone can be trusted because he's had training.

I don't think this is a good idea as if fights are started they very well may quickly become deadly. A student shouldn't be allowed to have a gun without proper training and they must have a cool head.

They have to be 21 and have training. Lots of other things can disqualify them too.
 
Yes. Yes I do. I want that precisely because liquor, for some ungodly reason, is allowed on campus at all, motivating crime.

Students who want to drink are going to drink whether it's "allowed" or not.

Jerry said:
The booz-culture cannot be permitted to continue imposing crime on the student body.

How does it impose crime on students? College campuses, even large ones where there is a lot of alcohol, are relatively safe places. That could easily change though if guns were immediately available. Those drunken fights between students could turn deadly if the nearest gun was in one's pocket.

Jerry said:
Liquor has killed more collage students then firearms. Prove me wrong.

I don't disagree...but what does it have to do with what I said?
 
Last edited:
Here ya go. I feel better. How about you:)

For concealed carry in texas. You also have to be 21(1) a completed application on a form provided by the department
that requires only the information listed in Subsection (b);
(2) two recent color passport photographs of the applicant;
(3) a certified copy of the applicant's birth certificate or certified
proof of age;
(4) proof of residency in this state;
(5) two complete sets of legible and classifiable fingerprints of the
applicant taken by a person appropriately trained in recording fingerprints
who is employed by a law enforcement agency or by a private
entity designated by a law enforcement agency as an entity qualified
to take fingerprints of an applicant for a license under this subchapter;
(6) a nonrefundable application and license fee of $140 paid to
the department;
(7) a handgun proficiency certificate described by Section
411.189;
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/tchlaws0102.pdf

When I was in college, $140 went a long ways towards drinking. Now, I can either pay $140 to carry a gun that I'll probably never use or party. When I was 21, I'd choose party every time. I suspect more than 95% of students won't bother with the permit.
 
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?

What a confused position to have. Citing the illegal consumption of alcohol by underage persons as a reason to limit legal access to firearms is just silly. How about enforcing drinking rules and or laws on the books at the respective Universities.
 
The 18 year old with a missile in a combat zone can be trusted because he's had training.

I don't think this is a good idea as if fights are started they very well may quickly become deadly. A student shouldn't be allowed to have a gun without proper training and they must have a cool head.

One of the wonderful things about being in an armed population is that one is forced to keep a cool head as they know a firearm will be drawn on them if the loose it.
 
Students who want to drink are going to drink whether it's "allowed" or not.

If liquor is not allowed on campus and they choose to drink, **** them, expel them. I have no sympathy.

How does it impose crime on students?

You are not allowing an adult, who can lawfully carry anywhere else, from defending themselves. You are in fact violating their right to bodily sovereignty by compromising their personnel security. This is exactly the same as not allowing combat of any kind, even if you are defending yourself. Exactly the same in every respect. "Oh, we can't let you know or learn a martial art because students drink and you might get into a fight and hurt or kill someone". Exact same thing.

College campuses, even large ones where there is a lot of alcohol, are relatively safe places. That could easily change though if guns were immediately available. Those drunken fights between students could turn deadly if the nearest gun was in one's pocket.

You have zero evidence demonstrating that more guns = more crime, whereas I have a mountain of evidence to the contrary.
 
Last edited:
They have to be 21 and have training. Lots of other things can disqualify them too.

In SD, if you are in such a party, get drunk, get in a fight, and get convicted of any number of domestic disturbance/assault charges, you loose your CCW and ability to perches pistols forever.

This means that most individuals who are the ones likely to pull a gun in anger are either already disqualified or soon will be.
 
The 18 year old with a missile in a combat zone can be trusted because he's had training.

So you might make an exception if the individual can also produce a military ID?

How is it that I, 32 y/o soldier, lawful CCW holder, and collage student, am somehow a risk to your safety if I have a weapon? Are you just as afraid of me when we walk by each-other in Walmart?
 
Gun control simply limits access for citizens to get legal weapons. A criminal, as a rule, doesn't fill out paperwork in order to acquire a firearm.
 
What a confused position to have. Citing the illegal consumption of alcohol by underage persons as a reason to limit legal access to firearms is just silly. How about enforcing drinking rules and or laws on the books at the respective Universities.

OK, get back to me when you've done that, then we'll talk about guns. Until then, let's be pragmatic. I think it's better if drunk college kids WEREN'T carrying guns when they decide to get in fights with each other.
 
If liquor is not allowed on campus and they choose to drink, **** them, expel them. I have no sympathy.

Whether you have sympathy for them or not, the fact remains that there is a lot of drinking on college campuses. If you actually care about that, then work on stamping out THAT problem before you put guns in their hands. :roll:

Jerry said:
You are not allowing an adult, who can lawfully carry anywhere else, from defending themselves.

Depends on where you are. Lots of state have laws against carrying firearms near bars or clubs, for much the same reason.

Jerry said:
You are in fact violating their right to bodily sovereignty by compromising their personnel security. This is exactly the same as not allowing combat of any kind, even if you are defending yourself. Exactly the same in every respect. "Oh, we can't let you know or learn a martial art because students drink and you might get into a fight and hurt or kill someone". Exact same thing.

Yeah, except from a pragmatic standpoint you can't ban KNOWLEDGE, or make them unlearn martial arts. You can ban ITEMS like guns.

Jerry said:
You have zero evidence demonstrating that more guns = more crime, whereas I have a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

And when you find someone who wants to argue for that particular straw man, you'll be prepared. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom