• 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

Mayor Snorkum said:
And the use of the phrase "the people" means EVERYONE, not just the militia. The second clause is not dependent on the first clause, quite the reverse. The people have to have the freedom and the right to own and bear weapons because the militia needs them.

You may be shocked to realize this, but the "right" to keep and bear arms is older than the human race itself. The precursor hominid species were making weapons before homo sapiens ever evolved. Homo neanderthalis also had weapons.

No, while a miilitia is necessary to preserve individual freedom, one of the freedoms that militia is protecting is the freedom to own weapons.
Click to expand...

There is some debate about that. I don't really care enough to engage into it too deeply as I have no emotional feelings towards any tool. But I do note that there is disagreement. And I do believe the founding fathers were more interested in a citizen army being able to have access to weapons than much of anything else. I'm not convinced the amendment carries much real meaning today. But I'm fine with most people being able to have and own wepaons.
 
Ikari said:
So until you can compile such data, you have no proper argument for restricting the rights of adults.
Click to expand...

To me, this is like saying one can't think until something is proven. I strongly disagree. I can look at other information and make connections.



Did they do so on campus? Is the accident rate above background?
Click to expand...

The first one I check on the search were on campus. Accidental. at a frat house. But I did not look at all of them.



And you've produced no data that would warrant using government force against the rights and liberties of adults in our society.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you call evidence and what you call rights. I don't believe anyone's rights are being violated. This is well within the scope of everyone's rights.
 
ric27 said:
The average John Doe will not spend the money for proper training unless it is mandated. Recognizing that as reality, requiring training and/or exhibition of minimal skills as a requirement to exercise the right is not unreasonable.
Click to expand...

This is sheerest opinion with no basis in fact. The average American deciding to buy a gun is aware of the dangers inherent in a tool devised for nothing but killing, and they usually take gun safety courses.

Signups at Gun Safety Courses Surge
 
Boo Radley said:
To me, this is like saying one can't think until something is proven. I strongly disagree. I can look at other information and make connections.
Click to expand...

No, you can think anything you want. What you cannot do is ACT until something is proven. That's the entire basis of our system. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. Our system was meant to be REACTIVE, not proactive. Proactive government force leads to bad places.


Boo Radley said:
The first one I check on the search were on campus. Accidental. at a frat house. But I did not look at all of them.
Click to expand...

Fraternity houses are typically NOT on campus. Additionally, most fraternities already have internal rules about allowing firearms on fraternity property.



Boo Radley said:
Depends on what you call evidence and what you call rights. I don't believe anyone's rights are being violated. This is well within the scope of everyone's rights.
Click to expand...

When you use government force against the free exercise of rights, you have infringed upon those rights. Without government force, people could carry weapons on campus. It takes that force to enforce habits which prevent people from carying on campus. Thus the right to keep and bear arms has been infringed. Now you need some form of evidence and proof through which you can demonstrate immediate danger and actual infringment of other's rights.
 
Ikari said:
No, you can think anything you want. What you cannot do is ACT until something is proven. That's the entire basis of our system. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. Our system was meant to be REACTIVE, not proactive. Proactive government force leads to bad places.
Click to expand...

First, this is a discussion forum and not a legislature. Second, the reasons for the opinion don't speak to what can or can't be done. As I said below, no rights are really being violated. Regulation has always beena llowed.



Fraternity houses are typically NOT on campus. Additionally, most fraternities already have internal rules about allowing firearms on fraternity property.
Click to expand...

Not the classroom, true. But it is college students at a college recoginized place of gathering. But I agree it is a much more dangerous place than the classroom. Still, the student shot himself. Not a criminal, not trying to defend himself. He used poor judgement and shot himself.





When you use government force against the free exercise of rights, you have infringed upon those rights. Without government force, people could carry weapons on campus. It takes that force to enforce habits which prevent people from carying on campus. Thus the right to keep and bear arms has been infringed. Now you need some form of evidence and proof through which you can demonstrate immediate danger and actual infringment of other's rights.
Click to expand...

We have alws and restrictions on all kinds of things. Few rights are absolute. Neither is the right to bear arms. Some regulation has always been allowed. No different here.
 
Boo Radley said:
There is some debate about that. I don't really care enough to engage into it too deeply as I have no emotional feelings towards any tool. But I do note that there is disagreement.
Click to expand...

The people who do not agree they have the freedom own guns have the freedom to not buy them.

What they do not have is the freedom to control others.

And I do believe the founding fathers were more interested in a citizen army being able to have access to weapons than much of anything else. I'm not convinced the amendment carries much real meaning today. But I'm fine with most people being able to have and own wepaons.
Click to expand...

The Constitution hasn't changed.

Human nature hasn't changed.

Ergo, the arguments supporting the Second Amendment from the days ratifying the Constitution haven't lost merit. The only people who should not be allowed to have guns are people who have proven they can't be trusted with them, ex-felons, people lacking the intellectual capacity to understand gun safety, and the mentally deranged.

Identifying the ex-felons is easy, identifying the retards is more difficult, and finding the psychotics and terminally depressed before they buy a weapon is practically impossible. So any society that understands that it's freedom comes from the muzzle of a gun defending the people's freedom to speak and own property is going to suffer marginally from the assualts of individuals abusing gun freedoms, just as that same society suffers from people combining the freedom to drive cars and the freedom to drink alcohol. Part of the risk posed by the criminal or lunatic obtaining guns can be ameliorated by ensuring that as many responsible citizens who want to own and carry guns have as much freedom as possible to do so.


Which isn't a lecture for you, or for anyone supporting gun freedom.

Heck, the Mayor doesn't own a gun, but his first wife's father owned a gun shop. The Mayor's personal choice has everything to do with just not being interested in shooting things anymore. But the Mayor defends vociferously the right of every responsible citizen to choose otherwise.

(But there is this crow outside in a tree who's been making a racket for at least an hour....shooting is becoming an attractive thought...)
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
First, this is a discussion forum and not a legislature. Second, the reasons for the opinion don't speak to what can or can't be done. As I said below, no rights are really being violated. Regulation has always beena llowed.
Click to expand...

Proper regulation can be allowed. Improper regulation must be fought.



Boo Radley said:
Not the classroom, true. But it is college students at a college recoginized place of gathering. But I agree it is a much more dangerous place than the classroom. Still, the student shot himself. Not a criminal, not trying to defend himself. He used poor judgement and shot himself.
Click to expand...

Accidential deaths due to fire arms clocks in under gravity. But we're talking about guns on campus and how they can raise the danger of others on campus. If it didn't happen on campus, you got nothing. Less you are now expanding how you want this to be restricted. Because oh yeah, some guy in a fraternity may have a gun so we should ban all fraternity members from being able to have guns because maybe, possibly, it could be that one day, someday he will accidently shoot himself or someone else.

Can you not see that as an improper argument. He must do something before you can argue for government force. So he shot himself, Dawinism in action. But you can't restrict EVERYONE's rights based on the relatively few number of accidential shootings.





Boo Radley said:
We have alws and restrictions on all kinds of things. Few rights are absolute. Neither is the right to bear arms. Some regulation has always been allowed. No different here.
Click to expand...

And as I said, proper restriction is one thing. But proper comes with proof and data. Not "I think"s and "I believe"s. Get some numbers, prove your point. Otherwise all you're arguing for is the use of government force against the rights and liberties of the individual based on your bias and assumptions.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not sure a gun does that. Many of us manage to defend ourselves just fine without a gun. And we ahve the added benefit of not shooting ourselves. ;)
Click to expand...

Everyone who carries a knife for self-defense has cut himself with a knife.

Yet, the fact that the Mayor always carried a box cutter in his back pocket in high school didn't cause him to cut anyone else. The three boys who wanted to rob the Mayor were not cut, because they decided that the money in the Mayor's pocket wasn't valuable enough to persist in their attempted robbery, once the Mayor revealed the cutter.

Similarly, many other crimes are prevented by gun owners who do nothing more than make it plain they're able to shoot their would be assailants. These near-crimes are typically not reported to police and hence do not show on any formals statistics. The "snick" of a safety coming off is incredibly loud in the ears of some.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
This is sheerest opinion with no basis in fact. The average American deciding to buy a gun is aware of the dangers inherent in a tool devised for nothing but killing, and they usually take gun safety courses.

Signups at Gun Safety Courses Surge
Click to expand...

lol...gun safety course on what? God help them if they ever have to draw and fire under stress.

I think it was 2 weeks ago...I watched a guy fire 50-60 rounds at a "bad guy" target 5 yds away, and only place about half the rounds on paper, and only 12 on the actual "bad guy"... I heard him comment to his buddy "yup, he's dead" (I wanted to shout at him "so are a whole lotta inocent bystanders")... I then watched him reload, holster his trusty sidearm, and swagger out of the range.

Make no mistake, I fully support the shall issue, but I would like to see some kind of qualification standard.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
Everyone who carries a knife for self-defense has cut himself with a knife.

Yet, the fact that the Mayor always carried a box cutter in his back pocket in high school didn't cause him to cut anyone else. The three boys who wanted to rob the Mayor were not cut, because they decided that the money in the Mayor's pocket wasn't valuable enough to persist in their attempted robbery, once the Mayor revealed the cutter.

Similarly, many other crimes are prevented by gun owners who do nothing more than make it plain they're able to shoot their would be assailants. These near-crimes are typically not reported to police and hence do not show on any formals statistics. The "snick" of a safety coming off is incredibly loud in the ears of some.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't carry a knife for that reason either, but a gun accident has more potential to do greater damage.
 
Ikari said:
Proper regulation can be allowed. Improper regulation must be fought.
Click to expand...

I agree. But this seems quite proper to me.



Accidential deaths due to fire arms clocks in under gravity. But we're talking about guns on campus and how they can raise the danger of others on campus. If it didn't happen on campus, you got nothing. Less you are now expanding how you want this to be restricted. Because oh yeah, some guy in a fraternity may have a gun so we should ban all fraternity members from being able to have guns because maybe, possibly, it could be that one day, someday he will accidently shoot himself or someone else.

Can you not see that as an improper argument. He must do something before you can argue for government force. So he shot himself, Dawinism in action. But you can't restrict EVERYONE's rights based on the relatively few number of accidential shootings.
Click to expand...


yes, we know they are going to happen. Where they happen means very little. But, no, we don't have to wait for them to happen. We can take existing knowledge and be proactive. We can anticipate based on the things we do know.




And as I said, proper restriction is one thing. But proper comes with proof and data. Not "I think"s and "I believe"s. Get some numbers, prove your point. Otherwise all you're arguing for is the use of government force against the rights and liberties of the individual based on your bias and assumptions.
Click to expand...

When I think is explained as to why I think, it is a little more. I disagree that we have to wait for the event. Now, it will happen sooner or later, but there is no need to wait for it. We can have foresight.
 
ric27 said:
lol...gun safety course on what? God help them if they ever have to draw and fire under stress.

I think it was 2 weeks ago...I watched a guy fire 50-60 rounds at a "bad guy" target 5 yds away, and only place about half the rounds on paper, and only 12 on the actual "bad guy"... I heard him comment to his buddy "yup, he's dead" (I wanted to shout at him "so are a whole lotta inocent bystanders")... I then watched him reload, holster his trusty sidearm, and swagger out of the range.

Make no mistake, I fully support the shall issue, but I would like to see some kind of qualification standard.
Click to expand...

Again, your anecdotal stories are not representative of the group as a whole.
 
Boo Radley said:
I wouldn't carry a knife for that reason either, but a gun accident has more potential to do greater damage.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, people who resist a violent crime with a knife are FAR more likely to be injured than someone who is resisting the same crime with a gun.
 
theangryamerican said:
On the contrary, people who resist a violent crime with a knife are FAR more likely to be injured than someone who is resisting the same crime with a gun.
Click to expand...

Not exactly what I'm speaking to, as I said I wouldn't use a knife either. I spoke to a knife accident as opposed to a gun accident.
 
theangryamerican said:
Again, your anecdotal stories are not representative of the group as a whole.
Click to expand...

Its simple logic...

When the Constitution and its Amendments were written, firearms training was something most people got from their fathers. Practice was afforded by hunting and self defense.

If you want to search for an historical precedent, for several hundred years, when the longbow was a crucial arm in England's armies, archery butts were set up in every village and the men were required to practice and compete.

I don't think we'll ever get everyone to agree on the training issue.


To me....no training time - no Glock 9
 
Boo Radley said:
I agree. But this seems quite proper to me.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. But you've still offered no actual proof. Just hearsay and conjecture. Which in my book does not make for proper regulation.


Boo Radley said:
yes, we know they are going to happen. Where they happen means very little. But, no, we don't have to wait for them to happen. We can take existing knowledge and be proactive. We can anticipate based on the things we do know.
Click to expand...

No, you absolutely cannot be proactive against people's rights. That's how you become enslaved rather than free. Every single right and freedom can be abused and can cause dangerous situations. It's a consequence of freedom. And once you have a large enough population, every single right and freedom WILL be abused by someone. But you cannot properly act until someone HAS abused it. You cannot properly restrict EVERYBODY's rights because a few will take advantage. When you live in a free society you note that people will take advantage, and when they do there are then procedures you can take to enforce some punishment. But you cannot punish everybody before hand, particularly if it's based on some irrational fear and no data. That's the worst abuse of them all.

Boo Radley said:
When I think is explained as to why I think, it is a little more. I disagree that we have to wait for the event. Now, it will happen sooner or later, but there is no need to wait for it. We can have foresight.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is reason to wait because we are a free country and we must allow people the ability to exercise their rights. You cannot restrict everybody's rights because something may potentially go wrong in the future. More people die from salmonella than accidental shootings. Hell, more people die of food born disease than from terrorists in this country. You can say "I think" till the cows come home. In my line of work that's called a hypothesis. It has to be tested before you can say anything definitive.
 
ric27 said:
Its simple logic...

When the Constitution and its Amendments were written, firearms training was something most people got from their fathers. Practice was afforded by hunting and self defense.

If you want to search for an historical precedent, for several hundred years, when the longbow was a crucial arm in England's armies, archery butts were set up in every village and the men were required to practice and compete.

I don't think we'll ever get everyone to agree on the training issue.


To me....no training time - no Glock 9
Click to expand...

You are correct. It IS simple logic...

There is nothing today that prevents parents passing on proper firearms handling to their children.
 
Boo Radley said:
I wouldn't carry a knife for that reason either, but a gun accident has more potential to do greater damage.
Click to expand...

Boo - I carry both (knife and pistol)

At about 20 feet....before a cop pulls out his gun, I could stab him repeatedly with a knife. Things move fast up close. In close-quarters fighting there is no more deadly weapon than the knife

At least arm yourself with a good blade if packing a gun is out of the equation
 
ric27 said:
There are no "minor" incidents with guns. No whoops. And very rarely is it the dumbass that gets hurt.
Click to expand...

my bs detector just redlined on that claim
 
Boo Radley said:
One, that isn't the issue in question. In question was who statisitically is more likely to be shot. More often, in actual shootings, we shoot ourselves.

Second, we have no real way to know about prevented crimes. A number, how big or small is debatable, are prevent by people without guns. But any study that can be seen as facutal would require more than just asking gun owners. I'm quite sure my dogs discourage crime, but any thing I say would be subject to question and not something that can be seen as statistical proof.
Click to expand...

people who spend the most time dealing with criminals are almost always armed.
 
ric27 said:
Boo - I carry both (knife and pistol)

At about 20 feet....before a cop pulls out his gun, I could stab him repeatedly with a knife. Things move fast up close. In close-quarters fighting there is no more deadly weapon than the knife

At least arm yourself with a good blade if packing a gun is out of the equation
Click to expand...

good advice. my trusty Spyderco Wave is with me constantly
 
theangryamerican said:
On the contrary, people who resist a violent crime with a knife are FAR more likely to be injured than someone who is resisting the same crime with a gun.
Click to expand...


instant stops with a knife require a great deal of skill or luck

ask anyone who has killed a deer with an arrow and a bullet
 
ric27 said:
Boo - I carry both (knife and pistol)

At about 20 feet....before a cop pulls out his gun, I could stab him repeatedly with a knife. Things move fast up close. In close-quarters fighting there is no more deadly weapon than the knife

At least arm yourself with a good blade if packing a gun is out of the equation
Click to expand...

Wait... so you're advocating that everyone should carry a knife, but not necessarily a gun for self defense? A knife is a much more difficult weapon for a person to effectively master AND opens the knife wielder up to a greater risk of injury when used to resist a violent crime.


...and to keep the post on topic, campuses that ban guns ban knives too.
 
ric27 said:
lol...gun safety course on what? God help them if they ever have to draw and fire under stress.

I think it was 2 weeks ago...I watched a guy fire 50-60 rounds at a "bad guy" target 5 yds away, and only place about half the rounds on paper, and only 12 on the actual "bad guy"... I heard him comment to his buddy "yup, he's dead" (I wanted to shout at him "so are a whole lotta inocent bystanders")... I then watched him reload, holster his trusty sidearm, and swagger out of the range.

Make no mistake, I fully support the shall issue, but I would like to see some kind of qualification standard.
Click to expand...

In other words, you're arguing that the Los Angeles County Sheriffs should not be armed, since just a few years ago they fired more than a hundred rounds at a suspect stopped at an intersection in Compton and failed to hit the supposed target even once. They shot the town to hell, but the suspect escaped.

If that is acceptable for police, it must be acceptable for civillians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom