• 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

While they look reasonable, in fact they are not reasonable. It is all these little "exceptions" that destroyed the 2nd Amendment as we see it today. When our Forefathers (IF you give them any weight) wrote the 2nd Amendment, all of these "exceptions" were known to them, and they put no limit on gun control,...in fact they specifically wrote, "Shall Not Be Infringed." Now how can anyone screw up those words????????

Those words have never been as absolute as some try to make them. At times the courts have ruled that regulation is quite reasonable. They do have some contradictory rulings, true, but regulation has always been allowed ins ome form or another. I think they look at the first part, the well regulated part. However, as we both can pull up qualified opinion to support eithe rside, which is one reason I think the amendment is porrly written.

What makes something reasonable has somethign to do with need versus response. There is no real reason to have a gun in the classroom. You save nor protect yourself from anything, but bring an unnecessary risk to the classroom.
 
Just a reflection.....

The schools are only a reflection of today's society. Parents are too busy....getting divorced, getting drunk/high/you name it, to actually be parents.


It is not the educaitonal system that is broken, it is the American family.

Reason why, we are in this stage
 
Those words have never been as absolute as some try to make them. At times the courts have ruled that regulation is quite reasonable. They do have some contradictory rulings, true, but regulation has always been allowed ins ome form or another. I think they look at the first part, the well regulated part. However, as we both can pull up qualified opinion to support eithe rside, which is one reason I think the amendment is porrly written.

What makes something reasonable has somethign to do with need versus response. There is no real reason to have a gun in the classroom. You save nor protect yourself from anything, but bring an unnecessary risk to the classroom.

A child might appreciate having a gun in his back pack on his way home from school, or a school shooting, or being kidnapped. Just because he has a gun at school, does not mean he has to have it on his desk top, probably in his back pack. Children taught gun safety understand how to treat the gun-tool. I had lessons when I was five or so, and never had an incident in my lifetime dealing with improper use of a firearm.

The other issue here is the difference between private & public schools & Constitutional rights. Parents opposed to guns can always send their child to a private school, or home school him/her.

And I clearly oppose the courts interpretation and gun laws. You can't misread shall not be infringed. People have lost the idea that freedom requires sacrifice and isn't free.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, we all can find a story, but what we would be the numbers concerning accidental shooting versus accidental knifing. Do you really think they are equal?

Accidental knifings are probably far more common... because knives are far more commonly used.

I've accidentally knifed myself on more occasions than I can remember. I accidentally knifed a friend once, when we were working to rig a load on a trailer. The knife cut through suddenly, and his hand was too close... felt really bad about that.
 
Not that I disagree with those laws, but that they are the only reasonable and proper ones. Not allowing guns in the classroom is also reasonable. Very reasonable.

As for the other, start a thread on it if you like. Might be worth discussing.



Yes, it has become quite clear that "reasonable restrictions" mean "restrictions Boo Radley thinks are reasonable, never mind data to the contrary." :roll:
 
How's the quail hunting?


Israeli carry (empty pipe) is to prevent accidents. You could say its an extra precaution measure instead of a more thorough and extensive training.

I carry cocked and locked, and I have zero fear of a discharge

I've carried a XD (besides Glocks) for years now using a cheap assed Uncle Mikes soft leather holster. More of a coozy really. Yes the slide wants to ride back, out of battery. A not-so-unimportant tidbit about the thumbwrap over the ass of the slide, if you have your thumb over the slide, touching the rear sight; it is nearly impossible to depress the grip safety with your thumb fat of the palm.

The trigger getting pulled?? A lot of **** would have to be ****ed up, including the shooters actions, in order to have an ND. You are dealing with a long trigger pull, of a not-so-light weight. More so, I take more care in reholstering. My point is, if someone is that rash in reholstering, they are just as apt to miss the holster entirely, dropping it, or putting it in their back pocket.

If someone is that intimidated by it, then PLEASE, don't carry it. Get a SA only revolver, and have a gunsmith weld a place across the left side of the trigger guard...

Angry, Turtle and Goshin....keep training

Remember...All guns are loaded and treat 'em accordingly. Don't believe your mama if she says its not

Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and sure of your target and beyond


So, you pack a pistol for the Izzy Government, but they don't require you to pack according to their established methods.

Very intresting.

Keep training, Ric.
 
Yeah, we all can find a story, but what we would be the numbers concerning accidental shooting versus accidental knifing. Do you really think they are equal?

knives are banned in most classrooms, are you saying we should start allowing those?
 
Those words have never been as absolute as some try to make them. At times the courts have ruled that regulation is quite reasonable. They do have some contradictory rulings, true, but regulation has always been allowed ins ome form or another. I think they look at the first part, the well regulated part. However, as we both can pull up qualified opinion to support eithe rside, which is one reason I think the amendment is porrly written.

What makes something reasonable has somethign to do with need versus response. There is no real reason to have a gun in the classroom. You save nor protect yourself from anything, but bring an unnecessary risk to the classroom.

There are plenty of reasons to have responible concealed carry permitees in the classroom. These university shootings would claim FAR less casualties if someone OTHER than the shooter had a gun.
 
There are plenty of reasons to have responible concealed carry permitees in the classroom. These university shootings would claim FAR less casualties if someone OTHER than the shooter had a gun.

As noted earlier, there are professionals in the field who say that is not so. It is as likely they would have added to the death total. And this opinion by police professionals has been linked throughout this thread and others. If they are right, having some knowledge about this, then it would be worse and not better. Then when you consider how rare those events are, adding additional risk without cause is large what we're talking about with guns in the classroom.
 
knives are banned in most classrooms, are you saying we should start allowing those?

Nope, they too shold be banned. I'm saying it's kind of silly to ban knives but not guns. :coffeepap
 
How's the quail hunting?


Israeli carry (empty pipe) is to prevent accidents. You could say its an extra precaution measure instead of a more thorough and extensive training.

I carry cocked and locked, and I have zero fear of a discharge

I've carried a XD (besides Glocks) for years now using a cheap assed Uncle Mikes soft leather holster. More of a coozy really. Yes the slide wants to ride back, out of battery. A not-so-unimportant tidbit about the thumbwrap over the ass of the slide, if you have your thumb over the slide, touching the rear sight; it is nearly impossible to depress the grip safety with your thumb fat of the palm.

The trigger getting pulled?? A lot of **** would have to be ****ed up, including the shooters actions, in order to have an ND. You are dealing with a long trigger pull, of a not-so-light weight. More so, I take more care in reholstering. My point is, if someone is that rash in reholstering, they are just as apt to miss the holster entirely, dropping it, or putting it in their back pocket.

If someone is that intimidated by it, then PLEASE, don't carry it. Get a SA only revolver, and have a gunsmith weld a place across the left side of the trigger guard...

Angry, Turtle and Goshin....keep training

Remember...All guns are loaded and treat 'em accordingly. Don't believe your mama if she says its not

Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and sure of your target and beyond

Keep training-LOL-I was a USPSA class A in 1987-back when Class A was top drawer, my percentages on classifiers would be GM level nowadays. I also held the Ohio (and probably national record but second chance fell apart) pin record-2.82 and 8.9 three table for years.
 
As noted earlier, there are professionals in the field who say that is not so. It is as likely they would have added to the death total. And this opinion by police professionals has been linked throughout this thread and others. If they are right, having some knowledge about this, then it would be worse and not better. Then when you consider how rare those events are, adding additional risk without cause is large what we're talking about with guns in the classroom.

very few police who yap on this subject are professionals and most of their yapping comes from a sense of entitlement


most cops who speak on gun issues are incompetent shots
 
Yes, it has become quite clear that "reasonable restrictions" mean "restrictions Boo Radley thinks are reasonable, never mind data to the contrary." :roll:

Well, it is quite appropriate for me to note the ones I think reasonable and why. And I've seen no data to the contrary. If you read, there is no real data on guns in the classroom. But I have presented data on people shooting themselves and other accidental shooting. I've shown how likely it is for young people to use poor judgement, and how safe the classroom is compared to the rest of society. This is data. And I've explained my reasoning.
 
very few police who yap on this subject are professionals and most of their yapping comes from a sense of entitlement


most cops who speak on gun issues are incompetent shots

You're opinion is noted, but I and others actually don't agree. This seems more your way of saying I don't care for their views. Fine. But, who would know more?
 
You're opinion is noted, but I and others actually don't agree. This seems more your way of saying I don't care for their views. Fine. But, who would know more?

1) I really don't care because I know you really don't know much about this subject but the vast majority of police officers are not competent shots which is why you almost never see full time cops winning combat pistol tournaments. The ones who do-Like LAPD's John Pride-are full time shooters and they aren't yapping about gun stuff because they have had their clocks cleaned too many times by civilians Like Doug Koenig Jerry Barnhart, Brian Enos, Todd Jarrett, and Robbie Leatham.

2)Having trained with some of the top police trainers in the country-like John Benner (google him), Massaad Ayoob (google him) I know what I am talking about and I know what these top LEOs say about police marksmanship

3) most of those who opine on this subject are bureaucrats who are distrustful of "civilians" using weapons. Its based on a power issue not expertise. Now you can believe police who tell you that people like me are less competent with weapons than cops and those of us who are professional level shooters just laugh
 
1) I really don't care because I know you really don't know much about this subject but the vast majority of police officers are not competent shots which is why you almost never see full time cops winning combat pistol tournaments. The ones who do-Like LAPD's John Pride-are full time shooters and they aren't yapping about gun stuff because they have had their clocks cleaned too many times by civilians Like Doug Koenig Jerry Barnhart, Brian Enos, Todd Jarrett, and Robbie Leatham.

2)Having trained with some of the top police trainers in the country-like John Benner (google him), Massaad Ayoob (google him) I know what I am talking about and I know what these top LEOs say about police marksmanship

3) most of those who opine on this subject are bureaucrats who are distrustful of "civilians" using weapons. Its based on a power issue not expertise. Now you can believe police who tell you that people like me are less competent with weapons than cops and those of us who are professional level shooters just laugh

I actually know one of the police trainers here. As a friend, I get to see and talk with a lot of folks knowledgable on the subject. But it's not about being a good shot. It's about judgement. While anyone can exhibit poor judgment, regardless of training, it is more likley that someone with good training will make better judgements than someone with the training.

However, the question was who knows more?
 
I actually know one of the police trainers here. As a friend, I get to see and talk with a lot of folks knowledgable on the subject. But it's not about being a good shot. It's about judgement. While anyone can exhibit poor judgment, regardless of training, it is more likley that someone with good training will make better judgements than someone with the training.

However, the question was who knows more?

the guys I speak of as trainers teach people how to survive gun fights.

they back me up on this

the cincinnati police department had 984 sworn officers in 1989

any officer who wanted to practice got "free" ammo at the range

so it was safe to say that cops aren't going to pay for ammo when they can get the stuff free

that year they used about 140K worth of ammo

training instructor Jack basham and his two assistants used about 20K
so that left 120K for 981 officers. Do the math

less than 150 rounds per officer in a year.

hardly expert
 
the guys I speak of as trainers teach people how to survive gun fights.

they back me up on this

the cincinnati police department had 984 sworn officers in 1989

any officer who wanted to practice got "free" ammo at the range

so it was safe to say that cops aren't going to pay for ammo when they can get the stuff free

that year they used about 140K worth of ammo

training instructor Jack basham and his two assistants used about 20K
so that left 120K for 981 officers. Do the math

less than 150 rounds per officer in a year.

hardly expert

I'm speaking of trainers and teachers. Had a group down helping us prepare an action plan. It is a very small minority view that more guns on campus is a good thing.
 
I'm speaking of trainers and teachers. Had a group down helping us prepare an action plan. It is a very small minority view that more guns on campus is a good thing.

what makes a university different than a mall?

only idiots want gun free zones-it encourages active shooters

when my father went to college it was during the end of the war and a couple years after it

he was a naval officer and a yale student

he had "shore Patrol" during the school day meaning he would often go to class in uniform with a sidearm and then report for shore patrol

funny thing no one ever got shot and there were a bunch of guys carrying arms
 
what makes a university different than a mall?

only idiots want gun free zones-it encourages active shooters

when my father went to college it was during the end of the war and a couple years after it

he was a naval officer and a yale student

he had "shore Patrol" during the school day meaning he would often go to class in uniform with a sidearm and then report for shore patrol

funny thing no one ever got shot and there were a bunch of guys carrying arms

A lot of things. There's nothing to steal really. There are statisitic that show schools are safer than the rest of society (and they've been linkerd), and let's face it a lot of mall workers don't want a lot of guns in the mall. ;)
 
A lot of things. There's nothing to steal really. There are statisitic that show schools are safer than the rest of society (and they've been linkerd), and let's face it a lot of mall workers don't want a lot of guns in the mall. ;)

there are three kinds of people

there are wolves, sheep dogs and sheep

wolves don't want people armed and many sheep are afraid as well
 
Sure, I'd like for everyone to take some basic training in gun safety and gun handling, if they're going to own a gun.

It should be a graduation requirement for high-school. After all, the lunatics on the left are always telling us how unsafe guns can be. Then they tell us that children should be educated fully in the latest "safe-sex" techniques. The American people have been informed, over and over and over again, that parents can't be trusted to tell their children the facts of life. Signficantly so, they clam that inner city children are most at risk, because of the prevalence of not-knowing-who-their-father-is disease.

Well, if they're so concerned about safety they can't have any valid objections to children being taught basic gun safety by trained and licensed professionals in a safe academic setting, right? And is any child more at risk for random discovery of a loaded firearm than those budding young gangsters in the inner cities?

So high school diplomas should be dependent upon successful completion of an approved gun safety course.
 
It should be a graduation requirement for high-school. After all, the lunatics on the left are always telling us how unsafe guns can be. Then they tell us that children should be educated fully in the latest "safe-sex" techniques. The American people have been informed, over and over and over again, that parents can't be trusted to tell their children the facts of life. Signficantly so, they clam that inner city children are most at risk, because of the prevalence of not-knowing-who-their-father-is disease.

Well, if they're so concerned about safety they can't have any valid objections to children being taught basic gun safety by trained and licensed professionals in a safe academic setting, right? And is any child more at risk for random discovery of a loaded firearm than those budding young gangsters in the inner cities?

So high school diplomas should be dependent upon successful completion of an approved gun safety course.

if we can teach a kid how to put a trojan on a banana we can teach a kid how to put a magazine in a glock or how to clear an M-16 rifle
 
I can see why some are happy about this, and I do see it as a solution to the issue. I merely find it unfortunate that we have to have this discussion at all. Allowing people to hold arms is seemingly beneficial, but at the same time that is creating a larger risk. One student pulls a gun out in the middle of class, and another pulls his out and takes the classmate down. Before long there's a firefight in the middle of a Biology class. Of course that's an exaggeration, but it's hard for me to see this as an entirely good decision.

Hopefully statistics will prove me wrong in this regard, and we'll see less crime due to this bill.
 
Back
Top Bottom