• 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:
He didn't have eyelids? He couldn't close his left eye while leaving his right eye relaxed?
Click to expand...

Mayor - You need mandatory training....and after that

Keep training
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
Schools will be even safer when the people are no longer denied a basic Constitutional freedom.

Mall workers who object to law abiding citizens exercising their Constitutional freedom to keep and bear arms, they're under no compulsion to work there.
Click to expand...

That is not likely true. Adding risk not there is not likely to make anything Safer. And that's true for schools and Malls. ;)
 
Ikari said:
Logical arguments are all well and good and can help maybe guess probabilities a bit better, but proof it is not. You have some stats, like colleges are overall safer areas than general areas. But what do you attribute that to? That they have no guns? Because there is no link between those two stats, that would be nothing more than a guess on your part. And again, in the end we are talking about government force against the rights and liberties of adults in our society. Whether you like it or not, 18 is adult. Reasonable restrictions can be argued and backed up with data. If you don't have the data, then you don't have a complete argument. And without a complete argument, you cannot talk about reasonable restrictions; not when the rights and liberties of the individual are at stake.
Click to expand...

No, I don't attribute it to lack of guns or having guns. It's the nature of the place. More structure overall, people mostly there for a purpose, and there is little need for violence. But it is this safe environment that makes guns largely not needed. The point about how safe it is relates to need for anyone to carry a gun. There really is no need for one.

And restrcitions can be backed up in a number of ways. Not just data, which can be helpful, but with sound reasoning as well. A person can look at the population, look at how they handle over responsibilities, how likley they are to make poor judgements, assess the need, and reach a conclusion even without studies that address the specific situation.

And no one is really losing anything. Most have managed to go to school without being armed for a long time now with nothing lost.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, I don't attribute it to lack of guns or having guns. It's the nature of the place.
Click to expand...

True. Guns don't kill people, people don't kill people - the goverment does - by setting the example that it is ok to target helpless people.


Pro-guns, anti-capital punishment. Let's put the blame where it belongs.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
No, I don't attribute it to lack of guns or having guns. It's the nature of the place. More structure overall, people mostly there for a purpose, and there is little need for violence. But it is this safe environment that makes guns largely not needed. The point about how safe it is relates to need for anyone to carry a gun. There really is no need for one.
Click to expand...

There isn't a safe environment. I hear of shootings everyday, not necessarily in colleges, but there are those too; UAH, VT, etc. There isn't such a thing as a safe environment.

Boo Radley said:
And no one is really losing anything. Most have managed to go to school without being armed for a long time now with nothing lost.
Click to expand...

What about the few that went to school unarmed and are dead? I guess that's just an acceptable sacrifice?
 
DashingAmerican said:
There isn't a safe environment. I hear of shootings everyday, not necessarily in colleges, but there are those too; UAH, VT, etc. There isn't such a thing as a safe environment.
Click to expand...

You must be hearing the same ones over and over because they are extremely rare. The numbers have been linked on this, and they really don't happen much. More common in k-12, but even rare there on the whole.



What about the few that went to school unarmed and are dead? I guess that's just an acceptable sacrifice?
Click to expand...

Your mistake is in thinking that if they were armed they wouldn't be. There is little evidence to support that guns on campus would save anyone. The advantage is always to the person who shoots first. Trained personal struggle in such situations. Untrained are even less likely to actually save their lives.
 
Boo Radley said:
There is little evidence to support that guns on campus would save anyone. The advantage is always to the person who shoots first. Trained personal struggle in such situations. Untrained are even less likely to actually save their lives.
Click to expand...

Training is important

That said.....That punk ass kid may not be a master class shooter with years of training under his belt (but has the basics pinned down) ...and when the unthinkable happens and there is a gunman in the classroom who is going to tie up your or someone's daughter, rape her and then shoot her in the back of the head, wouldn't you rather that kid be equipped to at least try?
 
ric27 said:
Training is important

That said.....That punk ass kid may not be a master class shooter with years of training under his belt (but has the basics pinned down) ...and when the unthinkable happens and there is a gunman in the classroom who is going to tie up your or someone's daughter, rape her and then shoot her in the back of the head, wouldn't you rather that kid be equipped to at least try?
Click to expand...

Besides the fact that isn't how it happens, it is not his ability to shoot that would be at question. It would be his decision making on when and where, and whether he would panic or not and not kill others in the effort. A school shooter merely shots. And he who shots first, by and large, wins.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, I don't attribute it to lack of guns or having guns. It's the nature of the place. More structure overall, people mostly there for a purpose, and there is little need for violence. But it is this safe environment that makes guns largely not needed. The point about how safe it is relates to need for anyone to carry a gun. There really is no need for one.

And restrcitions can be backed up in a number of ways. Not just data, which can be helpful, but with sound reasoning as well. A person can look at the population, look at how they handle over responsibilities, how likley they are to make poor judgements, assess the need, and reach a conclusion even without studies that address the specific situation.

And no one is really losing anything. Most have managed to go to school without being armed for a long time now with nothing lost.
Click to expand...

When rights are restricted, the People always lose. Most do go to school without being armed, even in schools which allow guns such as mine. What is lost by allowing people to exercise their rights? Nothing, it's an exercise in freedom. Until it's a problem, I see no need to use government force against the rights and liberties of the individual.
 
Boo Radley said:
Besides the fact that isn't how it happens, it is not his ability to shoot that would be at question. It would be his decision making on when and where, and whether he would panic or not and not kill others in the effort. A school shooter merely shots. And he who shots first, by and large, wins.
Click to expand...

The flaw in your logic is that he can't shoot multiple people at once.
 
DashingAmerican said:
The flaw in your logic is that he can't shoot multiple people at once.
Click to expand...

If he has the right weapon, he sure can. But we really wouldn't need to. These things happen fast, they are chaotic, and it is unlikely an untrained person would react fast enough to effectively draw his weapong, find the shooter before the shooter found him.
 
Ikari said:
When rights are restricted, the People always lose. Most do go to school without being armed, even in schools which allow guns such as mine. What is lost by allowing people to exercise their rights? Nothing, it's an exercise in freedom. Until it's a problem, I see no need to use government force against the rights and liberties of the individual.
Click to expand...

That's silly. This would mean we could never have any restriction on anything as we would always lose. The fact is reasonable restrictions often help and make things opporate safer and smoother. And forsight is the ability to see the problems before they crop up. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
That's silly. This would mean we could never have any restriction on anything as we would always lose. The fact is reasonable restrictions often help and make things opporate safer and smoother. And forsight is the ability to see the problems before they crop up. ;)
Click to expand...

Gun oil makes things operate safer and smoother, not restrictions. Foresight without any supporting evidence is just wild-ass guessing.
 
theangryamerican said:
Gun oil makes things operate safer and smoother, not restrictions. Foresight without any supporting evidence is just wild-ass guessing.
Click to expand...

There is supporting evidence. We know young people are less likely to make good decisions. That's supporting evidence. We know schools are quite safe without weapons. That's supporting evidence. We know people shoot themselves more often than they shoot criminals. That is supporting evidence. Police trainers say that armed students are nto likley to prevent shootings at schools. That is supporting evidence. And a reasonable person, with foresight, and justifiably reach the conclusion that armed students is a bad idea.
 
Boo Radley said:
That's silly. This would mean we could never have any restriction on anything as we would always lose. The fact is reasonable restrictions often help and make things opporate safer and smoother. And forsight is the ability to see the problems before they crop up. ;)
Click to expand...

At the cost of freedom. It's not saying that you cannot have restriction, but it's meant to urge one to actually think about the restrictions you want to put in place. Since things like anarchy cannot work with humans, we are left with a system which demands government of some sort. Keep the calm sort of thing. However, foresight as you say, is not something that really exists. You're not Maddam Cleo and you have no clairvoyance. You can speak to probabilities; but that's it. It is likely X. But you still don't know, you cannot know the future. But the fact also remains that our system is meant to be reactive. You don't restrict everyone based off of maybes and could bes.

The end result is that you haven't really provided any evidence and continue not to but rather claim some clairvoyance and ability to know the future. But nothing you have brought up has really stood out as proof and reason to restrict adults in our society from exercising their rights.
 
Boo Radley said:
There is supporting evidence. We know young people are less likely to make good decisions. That's supporting evidence. We know schools are quite safe without weapons. That's supporting evidence. We know people shoot themselves more often than they shoot criminals. That is supporting evidence. Police trainers say that armed students are nto likley to prevent shootings at schools. That is supporting evidence. And a reasonable person, with foresight, and justifiably reach the conclusion that armed students is a bad idea.
Click to expand...

No one on my campus with a gun has made a "bad" eecision. My campus is just as safe as any other (maybe even safer) with weapons. No one on my campus has accidently shot themselves with their gun. Police are 10 minutes away when you really need them. So much for your "supporting" evidence. It hasn't seemed to work out in real life yet.
 
Boo Radley said:
Besides the fact that isn't how it happens, it is not his ability to shoot that would be at question. It would be his decision making on when and where, and whether he would panic or not and not kill others in the effort. A school shooter merely shots. And he who shots first, by and large, wins.
Click to expand...

Now, you are a being inflexible. Have no other choice but to go for the jugular :2razz:

What prevents them from doing it now? The thing that will stop a crazy with a gun, teacher, milk truck driver, kids, whatever, is another person WITH A GUN.

Thats the only thing that works! Who is in school all the time? Teachers/students

Nothing will stop a crazed dumb**** or anyone else from killing students/teachers, except the knowledge that Bob, John, Suzy or Mrs. Daisy from History across the hall MIGHT be armed, or better yet, they KNOW other students/teachers could be armed.

Why don't the fruity loops attack places where they know a gun could be? Because guns are a deterrent! Boo

It's why PDs are rarely attacked by crazy people. Even insane people get it.

And remember....

Keep training
 
Last edited:
The point is to protect those in the classroom. We actually have a plan that doesn't involve anyone having a gun. We've praticed it, and timed officer response.

And people with guns are attacked. They're ususally dead. I proved this point to my brother in law once, as i've said before. He made your argument. I shot him with a paint ball before he even knew he was in trouble.

But I have a dog, three actually, and I haven't been robbed either, even though my nieghbors have. There are all kinds of ways not look like a victim. You don't really have to have a gun. A gun is no more than atool. As with any tool, it is the person who uses it that matters and not the tool itself.
 
Boo Radley said:
The point is to protect those in the classroom. We actually have a plan that doesn't involve anyone having a gun. We've praticed it, and timed officer response.

And people with guns are attacked. They're ususally dead. I proved this point to my brother in law once, as i've said before. He made your argument. I shot him with a paint ball before he even knew he was in trouble.

But I have a dog, three actually, and I haven't been robbed either, even though my nieghbors have. There are all kinds of ways not look like a victim. You don't really have to have a gun. A gun is no more than atool. As with any tool, it is the person who uses it that matters and not the tool itself.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
The point is to protect those in the classroom. We actually have a plan that doesn't involve anyone having a gun. We've praticed it, and timed officer response.

And people with guns are attacked. They're ususally dead. I proved this point to my brother in law once, as i've said before. He made your argument. I shot him with a paint ball before he even knew he was in trouble.

But I have a dog, three actually, and I haven't been robbed either, even though my nieghbors have. There are all kinds of ways not look like a victim. You don't really have to have a gun. A gun is no more than atool. As with any tool, it is the person who uses it that matters and not the tool itself.
Click to expand...

You working against yourself here, Boo.
 
Erod said:
In Texas, we don't have many home invasions. Criminals know there's a very likely chance that they encounter a homeowner loaded for bear, and with our Castle laws, the shooter won't even be bothered with a court appearance.

A TON of people here have their concealed-weapon license, and I assure you, they'll use it. A few people in every buidling will be carrying, and someone with bad intentions might think twice, and if they don't, they'll be gunned down far sooner than before.
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom