• 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

FilmFestGuy said:
Then why does Texas have an above-the-national-average violent crime rate (per capita); and why do the New England states ALL rank near the bottom with the lowest violent crime rates? Indeed, nearly all of the Southern, most gun-friendly states have above-national-average violent crime rates.

My state of Tennessee, which practically mandates carrying guns out pointed at anyone who looks suspicious, has the 2nd highest rate in the nation (behind South Carolina, and just above Nevada, Florida, Louisiana, and Alaska - all gun-friendly places). The only "state" that beats them all is the District of Columbia. Texas is 16th.

CRIME RATES
Click to expand...

Look at the gap between D.C. which has the most strict gun laws and South Carolina. It's about 800....
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Then why does Texas have an above-the-national-average violent crime rate (per capita); and why do the New England states ALL rank near the bottom with the lowest violent crime rates? Indeed, nearly all of the Southern, most gun-friendly states have above-national-average violent crime rates.

My state of Tennessee, which practically mandates carrying guns out pointed at anyone who looks suspicious, has the 2nd highest rate in the nation (behind South Carolina, and just above Nevada, Florida, Louisiana, and Alaska - all gun-friendly places). The only "state" that beats them all is the District of Columbia. Texas is 16th.

CRIME RATES
Click to expand...

Just to shoot holes in your argument, pun intended, the New England states allow conceal carry. And could it be, that most New England STATES are the sized of Southern COUNTIES. We have more people so naturally the crime rate is going to be higher. It could be that the crime rates are inflated by people that have illegally purchased guns so that they can't run the casings and track the weapon.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/
 
Last edited:
theangryamerican said:
I will absolutely agree with you on one point. Not everyone has to have a gun. It should be up to the individual to decide if they want the responsibility of carrying a firearm. That said, those that do want to have and carry a gun should not be limited by those that don't. I don't want a dog and I think that improperly trained dogs are dangerous and hard to control, much more so than a gun. However, that doesn't mean that you can't own dogs.

Oh...and your paintball analogy is ridiculous and quite reckless on your part, if guns and gun owners are as dangerous as you claim.
Click to expand...

He had no way to get his gun before I shot him. The point.

And I don't deny people to have a gun. Nor would I ever suggest that. I deny them to have a gun at school. Very specific.
 
Boo Radley said:
He had no way to get his gun before I shot him. The point.
Click to expand...

...and you proved that if a family member wants to assassinate you without any provocation, you likely can't stop them. However, this is not an accurate scenario for demonstrating self-defense because the bad guy rarely knows where you will be at a given time, in order to set up an ambush like you likely did and they usually don't open fire for no reason, (the goal of most violent crimes being to draw as little attention to the bad guy as possible.) To complicate matters further, maybe your family member has terrible situational awareness. Your one anecdotal story (which you're tried to pass off as proof before) does absolutely nothing to prove the point that you think you're making.

Boo Radley said:
And I don't deny people to have a gun. Nor would I ever suggest that. I deny them to have a gun at school. Very specific.
Click to expand...

Denying me carrying my gun anywhere is denying me having a gun, period. You don't get to pick when and where I exercise my Second Amendment right, just like I can't choose when and where you exercise your First Amendment right. This really is not complicated, Boo. Stop trying to make it seem that way.
 
Last edited:
theangryamerican said:
QUOTE=Boo Radley;1059492500]

...and you proved that if a family member wants to assassinate you without any provocation, you likely can't stop them. However, this is not an accurate scenario for demonstrating self-defense because the bad guy rarely knows where you will be at a given time, in order to set up an ambush like you likely did and they usually don't open fire for no reason, (the goal of most violent crimes being to draw as little attention to the bad guy as possible.) To complicate matters further, maybe your family member has terrible situational awareness. Your one anecdotal story (which you're tried to pass off as proof before) does absolutely nothing to prove the point that you think you're making.
Click to expand...

Not just a fimaly member, but any one. And I don't have to know. Observation and waiting, or just taking advantage of opportunity is all one needs. The person protecting him or her self will never know as much as the person going for them. Unless you have the gun pulled and ready to fire all the time, the advantage is with the criminal.

Denying me carrying my gun anywhere is denying me having a gun, period. You don't get to pick when and where I exercise my Second Amendment right, just like I can't choose when and where you exercise your First Amendment right. This really is not complicated, Boo. Stop trying to make it seem that way.
Click to expand...

Hyperbole much? There ahve always been restrictions as to where. Nothing new about this in the slightest. Nor is it a violation of the Constitution. Some regulation has always been allowed, including limiting where you carry.
 
DashingAmerican said:
Just to shoot holes in your argument, pun intended, the New England states allow conceal carry. And could it be, that most New England STATES are the sized of Southern COUNTIES. We have more people so naturally the crime rate is going to be higher. It could be that the crime rates are inflated by people that have illegally purchased guns so that they can't run the casings and track the weapon.

Handgunlaw.us
Click to expand...

I wasn't making an argument, I was asking a question. Someone stated that Texas has a low crime rate because people have guns. But they're crime rate is the 16th highest.

I'm was asking, if one believes that guns lower the crime rate, prove it. I'm not saying that there is causality between gun ownership and crime rates, but ERod was. Statistics seem to say otherwise.

I live in a state that passed laws saying that you can take guns into bars (taking the right away from business owners to say "no", even), passed laws allowing people to carry guns into city parks (even to Little League games) - and we have the 5th highest violent crime rate in the nation.

I'm not against the 2nd Amendment. I'm for making your argument work. There appears to be no connection between gun ownership and crime rates - IF there is, then it's not the direction that ERod proposed. And I'm not saying there is.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not just a fimaly member, but any one. And I don't have to know. Observation and waiting, or just taking advantage of opportunity is all one needs. The person protecting him or her self will never know as much as the person going for them. Unless you have the gun pulled and ready to fire all the time, the advantage is with the criminal.
Click to expand...

Would be you willing try your paintball trick on any random armed citizen, without knowing their firearms experience? Come on, be realistic. You ambushed a family member because you were comfortable doing so. You knew how he would react, otherwise you wouldn't have taken the chance of getting shot with a real gun when all you had was a paintball gun. (i hope you understand that this was incredibly dumb, by the way.) Most violent crimes are crimes of opportunity, not careful planning, regardless of what you see on TV. If you fail to see why this example doesn't prove anything, you really are lost when it comes to this topic.


Boo Radley said:
Hyperbole much? There ahve always been restrictions as to where. Nothing new about this in the slightest. Nor is it a violation of the Constitution. Some regulation has always been allowed, including limiting where you carry.
Click to expand...

There have not "always been restrictions" as to where a right can be exercised and the restrictions that currently exist should not be in place. There is nothing hyperbolic about saying that you shouldn't be able choose when and where I exercise a particular right, until it infringes on your own rights. For the -nth time, a responsibly carried gun is a danger to no one except those who would seek to harm the gun carrier.
 
theangryamerican said:
Would be you willing try your paintball trick on any random armed citizen, without knowing their firearms experience? Come on, be realistic. You ambushed a family member because you were comfortable doing so. You knew how he would react, otherwise you wouldn't have taken the chance of getting shot with a real gun when all you had was a paintball gun. (i hope you understand that this was incredibly dumb, by the way.) Most violent crimes are crimes of opportunity, not careful planning, regardless of what you see on TV. If you fail to see why this example doesn't prove anything, you really are lost when it comes to this topic.
Click to expand...

The point is I could, with a paint ball or a real gun. As i would know what I was doing, I'd win. They could never prevent me from doing it.


There have not "always been restrictions" as to where a right can be exercised and the restrictions that currently exist should not be in place. There is nothing hyperbolic about saying that you shouldn't be able choose when and where I exercise a particular right, until it infringes on your own rights. For the -nth time, a responsibly carried gun is a danger to no one except those who would seek to harm the gun carrier.
Click to expand...

Restrictions of some kind are almost as old as the country. ANd not admitting that, pretending that we could always take a gun anywhere is hyperbolic.
 
Boo Radley said:
The point is I could, with a paint ball or a real gun. As i would know what I was doing, I'd win. They could never prevent me from doing it.
Click to expand...

Lol. Perhaps you have a promising future as a criminal then because the amount of bad guys shot by gun carrying citizens would seem to indicate that you must just be that much better than the average criminal. It's not at all impossible for an average CC'er to be able to put rounds on target in under two seconds from a concealed draw. The fastest I've personally seen was about .9 seconds from concealed draw with the first round COM on the target. That's pretty damn fast. The number of defensive gun uses would seem to indicate that the average gun carrier is not as helpless as you seem to be implying.

Boo Radley said:
Restrictions of some kind are almost as old as the country. ANd not admitting that, pretending that we could always take a gun anywhere is hyperbolic.
Click to expand...

You can naysay and reinterpret all you wish, but it doesn't change the fact that until my rights actually infringe upon yours, there is no reason to restrict them. Anything else is just emotionalizing what you accurately called a simple "tool." Unless you intend to harm law abiding citizens, why do you care if they are armed?
 
Last edited:
FilmFestGuy said:
I wasn't making an argument, I was asking a question. Someone stated that Texas has a low crime rate because people have guns. But they're crime rate is the 16th highest.

I'm was asking, if one believes that guns lower the crime rate, prove it. I'm not saying that there is causality between gun ownership and crime rates, but ERod was. Statistics seem to say otherwise.

I live in a state that passed laws saying that you can take guns into bars (taking the right away from business owners to say "no", even), passed laws allowing people to carry guns into city parks (even to Little League games) - and we have the 5th highest violent crime rate in the nation.

I'm not against the 2nd Amendment. I'm for making your argument work. There appears to be no connection between gun ownership and crime rates - IF there is, then it's not the direction that ERod proposed. And I'm not saying there is.
Click to expand...


let us accept your argument that there is no connection between crime rates and gun ownership

can anyone justify restrictions on honest people owning guns if that is the case?

there are lots of reasons to support freedom

can there ever be an argument to restrict freedom if said restriction has no positive implication in increasing public safety?
 
FilmFestGuy said:
I wasn't making an argument, I was asking a question. Someone stated that Texas has a low crime rate because people have guns. But they're crime rate is the 16th highest.
Click to expand...

Ah. My apologies.
 
Boo Radley said:
Restrictions of some kind are almost as old as the country. ANd not admitting that, pretending that we could always take a gun anywhere is hyperbolic.
Click to expand...

I still say restrictions need to come with proof. Not bias, hearsay, and guesses like you've been doing. Show me it's more dangerous to allow guns on campus. I've given you plenty of examples which say they don't. Real world examples. You can wax philosophical all you want; but end of the day there is a measurement. Between theory and reality, I take reality. Since these are the rights and liberties of the individual here, the free exercise of them by adults in our population; we must be very careful in how we tread and look to preserve as much as possible the blessings of freedom. I need to see data showing a significant increase in crime from campuses with guns before I'll consider using government force against the individual. And that's the way it's supposed to be. That is, if your goal is the preservation and proliferation of freedom.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
Yes.

The commons sense says that since they're supposed to be adults they must be treated like adults.

If, as you claim, they can't be expected to behave like adults, then should we not Amend the Constitution and adjust the voting age to that age in which you're comfortable in treating them like adults?

What age would that be?
Click to expand...

If, as you claim, they can't be expected to behave like adults
Click to expand...
LOL, In know better I served in the USMC and as a NCO, yep I know better. Although when the rubber meets the road i would trust must of my Marines with my life but in town at a bar and asking them to behave civily, that's another story.


What age would that be?
Click to expand...
17, if your old enough to die for your country then you are a adult.
 
Ikari said:
I still say restrictions need to come with proof. Not bias, hearsay, and guesses like you've been doing. Show me it's more dangerous to allow guns on campus. I've given you plenty of examples which say they don't. Real world examples. You can wax philosophical all you want; but end of the day there is a measurement. Between theory and reality, I take reality. Since these are the rights and liberties of the individual here, the free exercise of them by adults in our population; we must be very careful in how we tread and look to preserve as much as possible the blessings of freedom. I need to see data showing a significant increase in crime from campuses with guns before I'll consider using government force against the individual. And that's the way it's supposed to be. That is, if your goal is the preservation and proliferation of freedom.
Click to expand...

Reasoning isn't equal to bias. Nor is it hearsay. You take the data you have to predict what you don't have. If this progresses, we will sooner of later have actual data, data predicted based on what we did know.
 
theangryamerican said:
Lol. Perhaps you have a promising future as a criminal then because the amount of bad guys shot by gun carrying citizens would seem to indicate that you must just be that much better than the average criminal. It's not at all impossible for an average CC'er to be able to put rounds on target in under two seconds from a concealed draw. The fastest I've personally seen was about .9 seconds from concealed draw with the first round COM on the target. That's pretty damn fast. The number of defensive gun uses would seem to indicate that the average gun carrier is not as helpless as you seem to be implying.



You can naysay and reinterpret all you wish, but it doesn't change the fact that until my rights actually infringe upon yours, there is no reason to restrict them. Anything else is just emotionalizing what you accurately called a simple "tool." Unless you intend to harm law abiding citizens, why do you care if they are armed?
Click to expand...

We don't shoot criminals very often. In fact, we shoot ourselves much more often. So, I'm not sure what you're going on about.

And no, I don't believe any rights are being infringed, just as they haven't been infringed all these years.
 
Boo Radley said:
We don't shoot criminals very often. In fact, we shoot ourselves much more often. So, I'm not sure what you're going on about.

And no, I don't believe any rights are being infringed, just as they haven't been infringed all these years.
Click to expand...


Your evidence regarding defensive shootings was already refuted very early on by Goshin, yet you're still riding that tired horse because it's just about all you have.
 
theangryamerican said:
Your evidence regarding defensive shootings was already refuted very early on by Goshin, yet you're still riding that tired horse because it's just about all you have.
Click to expand...

No it hasn't. The actual numbers are the actual numbers. They have not been shown inaccurate in any way. Sorry.
 
Boo Radley said:
No it hasn't. The actual numbers are the actual numbers. They have not been shown inaccurate in any way. Sorry.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right, you can't argue with the numbers. Last time they were posted, you just chose to ignore them.



Goshin said:
Estimates on self-defense useage ranges from extreme lows of around 80,000 to extreme highs of 2.5 million, annually. If the truth is somewhere in the middle, guns protect people dozens if not hundreds of times more often than they are used to inflict unintentional or needless or unlawful harm.


Liberty and fundamental rights FTW.
Click to expand...



Now, please...tell me about ALL those accidental shootings again.
 
theangryamerican said:
You're absolutely right, you can't argue with the numbers. Last time they were posted, you just chose to ignore them.
Click to expand...


I've ignored nothing. I addressed them. I showed the error in your use of them. Go back and read.



Now, please...tell me about ALL those accidental shootings again.
Click to expand...

The numbers are posted. Go back and read. :coffeepap
 
I see this as a blessing and not a curse. I would think (IMO) that these guys who decide to go on a gun rampage at colleges are little weak punks who never try this if they thought they would get shot. When you don't know who is packing, you are less likely to pull a gun. And most likely these guns will be tucked away in back packs.
 
shintao said:
I see this as a blessing and not a curse. I would think (IMO) that these guys who decide to go on a gun rampage at colleges are little weak punks who never try this if they thought they would get shot. When you don't know who is packing, you are less likely to pull a gun. And most likely these guns will be tucked away in back packs.
Click to expand...

I don't beleive that to be true. Most these folks exepcrted to die. Sought being killed. They would, in a crazy way, merely plan better.
 
Boo Radley said:
I've ignored nothing. I addressed them. I showed the error in your use of them. Go back and read.


The numbers are posted. Go back and read. :coffeepap
Click to expand...


I read your "numbers." Tell me exactly what kind of mathmetical formula you're using to say that 16,000 alleged accidental shootings is more than 80,000 alleged defensive uses?

Since you're either forgetful or just playing at ignorance, let me refresh you on how the conversation went.

You threw out your VPC accidental shooting numbers. (16,000, rounded up)

Goshin provided his evidence showing that there are far more defensive uses than accidental shootings (80,000, rounded down) and you responded with:

Boo Radley said:
What is true is debatable. At least you see the problem with statistics. But adding accidental shootings, not just those that led to deaths, with suicides, and I believe they do out number actual crminals shot (not questionable not shot statistics).
Click to expand...

Now, that's not exactly earth shattering in and of itself, (I'd almost venture to call it a copout) and you never bothered to provided any evidence supporting that when I called you on it several posts later. You even failed to recognize that your "16,000 accidental shootings" number already included non-fatal shootings. You just kept clamoring on about how college "kids" can't be trusted to have good judgement.

Face it, you have an irrational and unjustifiable fear of armed citizens and will trump up whatever charges you feel necessary to attempt to prove your point. Every time a gun thread crops up, you shout the same unsubstantiated claims and then refuse to acknowledge when the evidence does not back up what you say. It's quite tiresome actually and your dead horse is starting to look a little bruised.

There's nothing wrong with being proven wrong, the problem lies in the people who stubbornly cling to their point of view after being clearly shown the error in their arguments. Something to think about, Boo.
 
theangryamerican said:
I read your "numbers." Tell me exactly what kind of mathmetical formula you're using to say that 16,000 alleged accidental shootings is more than 80,000 alleged defensive uses?

Since you're either forgetful or just playing at ignorance, let me refresh you on how the conversation went.

You threw out your VPC accidental shooting numbers. (16,000, rounded up)

Goshin provided his evidence showing that there are far more defensive uses than accidental shootings (80,000, rounded down) and you responded with:
Click to expand...

Noticed the word alleged. That means we don't have aany real numbers. We have a highly dubious claim that you want to treat as equal to actual numbers.

Now, that's not exactly earth shattering in and of itself, (I'd almost venture to call it a copout) and you never bothered to provided any evidence supporting that when I called you on it several posts later. You even failed to recognize that your "16,000 accidental shootings" number already included non-fatal shootings. You just kept clamoring on about how college "kids" can't be trusted to have good judgement.

Face it, you have an irrational and unjustifiable fear of armed citizens and will trump up whatever charges you feel necessary to attempt to prove your point. Every time a gun thread crops up, you shout the same unsubstantiated claims and then refuse to acknowledge when the evidence does not back up what you say. It's quite tiresome actually and your dead horse is starting to look a little bruised.

There's nothing wrong with being proven wrong, the problem lies in the people who stubbornly cling to their point of view after being clearly shown the error in their arguments. Something to think about, Boo.
Click to expand...

Now read both for unerstanding. When i get back, if you need help, I'll try and help you.
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
Noticed the word alleged. That means we don't have aany real numbers. We have a highly dubious claim that you want to treat as equal to actual numbers.



Now read both for unerstanding. When i get back, if you need help, I'll try and help you.
Click to expand...

Your attempts to talk down to other posters don't make your arguments more convincing. Notice that I used the word "alleged" for BOTH your numbers and Goshin's. Those were my words, not his, so please don't cherry pick. If Goshin's low ball estimate was "dubious" than your numbers are just as suspect. Now, since you seem to have trouble with numbers, let's try a picture instead:

collegecarrymap.png


You told Ikari that Colorado was not enough evidence for you to make an accurate judgement about the issue (again, kind of smells of cop out, don't you think?) Wouldn't it be reasonable to say that with over half of the states in the country allowing guns on campuses in some form or another, your wild fears should have played out already?

Face it, Boo. Guns on campus is not anything new or outrageous. It's not something that they only try in "backwater states" like Texas and Colorado. In fact, it would appear to be a non-issue if you're not a criminal. If someone wants to be able to carry, there is no proven reason to forbid them to do so.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom