• Welcome!
    Logout|My Dashboard

Texas House OKs bill allowing guns in college classrooms - The Galveston County Daily News: Local News

October 23, 2016

Texas House OKs bill allowing guns in college classrooms

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.


    You must be a subscribed user to comment on this story.

  • RonShelby posted at 9:06 am on Sun, May 5, 2013.

    RonShelby Posts: 1047

    If this passes, I wouldn't want to teach in Texas University with armed students in the classroom. Just remember back to being that age, with all the petty conflicts that tend to happen with students and seem to be so incredibly important at the time. e.g. First breakups. They are all concentrated in the thousands on single campuses without the benefit of more mature adult intercession, input and comment as they had when they live at home during High School. They still require time to acquire more maturity, life experiences and contol hormones. This doesn't sound like the greatest idea to me.

  • IHOG posted at 10:39 am on Sun, May 5, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    RON, the most dangerous places are "gun free zones". Places where a shooter knows they can kill until out of ammo or targets.
    A CHL student might be a life saver.
    Why do you think a CHL college student would become a danger because they entered a gun free zone? They aren't dangerous off campus and don't change into a bloodthirsty killer for classes.
    The gun safety training and background checks needed to get a CHL serves to limit irrational nuts access to a CHL.

  • truthserum posted at 10:47 am on Sun, May 5, 2013.

    truthserum Posts: 584

    I agree - Ron Shelby. College students are highly emotional group - lots of pressure and I can tell you that this bill terrifies a lot of college students that i know. This just might be the tipping point for that constituency to vote against republican candidates / Perry in the next election.

    What's next weapons/ guns allowed in bars?

  • kevjlang posted at 11:47 am on Sun, May 5, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    IHOG, if I happen to be an angry and emotionally disturbed person with an urge to kill and no desire to live, do you really think that I'm going to let the possibility of one, two, or even thirty potential handguns keep me from squeezing off a hundred or so rounds over a half minute or so?

    The fact of the matter is that deranged individuals don't care if you might have a gun. Another fact to consider is that most places that are not designated as gun-free, statistically are still pretty close to being gun-free. Consider this, too: a concealed handgun is useless until the carrier gets it unholstered and into firing position. If you're paranoid, you probably have it drawn all the time, but, if not, it's probably going to take you about two seconds to react, assuming you have fairly good disaster training.

    Certainly, there could be rewards for allowing CHLs in class. However, you cannot deny the risks, and you certainly can't call them a magic potion for dealing with these mass killings that have been going around.

  • RonShelby posted at 12:04 pm on Sun, May 5, 2013.

    RonShelby Posts: 1047

    IHOG, I don't agree. I'm not anti-gun, just in certain situations and certain types of guns (e.g. semi-automatics and clips over 10 bullets).

    Under your rationale, you would therefore allow Concealed Handguns in a courtroom, or areas of a public building like the Child Support area of the County Clerk's office?

  • npappous posted at 1:02 pm on Sun, May 5, 2013.

    npappous Posts: 578

    ".... without the benefit of more mature adult intercession, input and comment as they had when they live at home during High School. They still require time to acquire more maturity, life experiences and control hormones. This doesn't sound like the greatest idea to me."

    And yet we believe that they are intellectually and emotionally prepared to vote responsibly. Something intrinsically contradictory going on here. If Ron is correct, and I agree there is some value in what he says, then why do not the same maturity concerns apply to other areas where students acquire adult responsibilities/priveleges? Like voting, getting married, having kids, getting credit cards, etc etc etc.....

  • RonShelby posted at 4:46 pm on Sun, May 5, 2013.

    RonShelby Posts: 1047

    That's a "Strawman" argument. They do not relate. Were talking about the safety of others which is one of the ultimate responsibilities of government.

  • npappous posted at 5:44 pm on Sun, May 5, 2013.

    npappous Posts: 578

    No. You brought up "maturity" as a threshold - not me... Judgement applies to all things. Not just those that you want to limit it to.

  • truthserum posted at 10:35 pm on Sun, May 5, 2013.

    truthserum Posts: 584

    Pappous - maturity as a threshold not the issue with what you bring up - voting and handguns perpetuate different results - comparing apples to oranges.

  • kevjlang posted at 10:55 pm on Sun, May 5, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Is this where we start counting the tolls of people that lost their lives because immature or deranged people voted for the wrong person for president?

    I hope that we can all agree that there are times and places where guns are not the answer, and there are people for whom guns should never be the answer. However, we live in a society that doesn't want to figure out a way to keep guns away from the wrong people. I want to assume that it's not just because the process might inconvenience a few good people.

  • sverige1 posted at 6:46 am on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to RonShelby posted at 12:04 pm on Sun, May 5, 2013:

    I've stopped trying to convince ! IHOG to find some semblence of reason. It's just entertaining to see him go on and on.

    But I do say "kudos" to the UT chancellor. Sakes alive, a college is supposed to be a sanctuary of learning and exchange of ideas. SInce when have we gotten to where folks on a college campus feel the need to arm to the gills? Then again, all this Lone Star college problem is a signal of our society's ills, and not the specificity of college campuses and the "dangers" they entail.

    There is typically no high volume of cash that exchanges in college classrooms. So, what...is it fear of robberies? Althoug U of H has its stories of student(s) being robbed, they are isolated incidents. And, we all must be careful everywhere we go...being out at night alone (esp. women)...is never a good idea.

    In the big picture, college is not cash-heavy, but rather, "blue books" and lecture halls. There's no big need for guns and ammo under normal cirumstances in these places. I also agree that considering the emotional make-up of the college kids, along with a blanket "green light" to carry weapons on the campuses is a recipe for disaster and more violence - and usually over "this too will pass" life events, like break-ups, not getting the 10AM M/W/F class you wanted, or making a 60 on a mid-term exam.

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again. School campuses are not in need of teachers or students being armed. There's too much volume of people, too much theft potential, and too much immaturity to go around. I forsee frequent evacuations due to "scares", stolen weaponry, guns going off in restrooms, pranks, et cetera. Bad idea.

  • sverige1 posted at 6:55 am on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to npappous posted at 1:02 pm on Sun, May 5, 2013:

    In my view, it's not that we're totally considering the maturity (or lack thereof) of typical college-age kids. Yes, that is a factor however, since many of them are 18, 19, and 20 years old...they're "babies" in many ways still.

    But, even more so, it's simply that because most college campuses house mass volumes of people (even smaller ones). College campuses are not unlike high schools, airports, Grand Central Station, concert halls, et cetera. When you have a daily and large conglomeration of people, you don't want to encourage every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Henrietta to go around with a gun on their person.

    Can you imagine all the History 101 lecture halls with 18 year old George carrying a gun on his holster and it "goes off" b/c he didn't properly secure it? Or how about Henrietta, who carries one in her purse, along with her eyeliner and Maybelline. It goes off as she's rustling around in her handbag looking for her Revlon Super-Illustrious lipstick, as professor Higgins is going on about the War of 1812. "Bam"!! There goes the lecture, building/college evacuated. Your thousands of dollars of education wasted on your son Bubba's college education - all because guns are going off all over the nation's college campuses. All because of the paranoia that college kids have to carry weapons to go to their T/TH lecture class.

  • DottyOA posted at 7:35 am on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    DottyOA Posts: 273

    OK, reasons below why a 21 year old + "college" student should not be able to conceal carry on a college campus are: failing a test, love life gone astray, emotionally immature, etc. Maybe we should tell that to the US Military so they don't allow 18 year olds to have access to fully automatic (real assault) weapons. OK, apples and oranges somewhat but not entirely, but Texas law allows a 21 year old in Texas to legally own a handgun. Gun free zones.....do they work? Virginia Tech, Newtown, Aurora, Ft.Hood (no guns allowed in the processing area where the massacre occurred)...ask yourself truthfully if it worked out well there. I prefer having at least somewhat even odds packed in the sanctity of my own pocket. A 21 year old college student should have the same odds should they desire and meet the requirements. The Senate should pass the law and Perry should sign it. As for gun free zones I stay the heck away from them whenever possible. Don't like the idea of being a helpless target for some nut case.

  • npappous posted at 7:53 am on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    npappous Posts: 578

    Hey, I agree with you totally. I teach some semesters and it would cause me concern to know that some of my students had guns in the classroom. But that said, there are some students who could come in armed and it would definitely make me feel safer. When someone says maturity and voting/marriage/having babies is an apples/oranges comparison because of different outcomes - so what? Everything has different outcomes. Maturity is the issue. We have designated a numerical target as a threshold for maturity. I think this has serious flaws. Some 15 year-olds are more mature than some 20 year-olds. Ron Shelby is correct in his point about maturity. But it applies to a lot of things - not just guns....

  • gecroix posted at 8:01 am on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6261

    That's why I vote for Craig, and won't vote for a Senator who'd vote against this bill.
    The hysterical predictions of more blood in the streets and hallways and increased killings of passion or the heat of the moment if CHL's are allowed has already been shown to be false. In every place that has CHLs. But, true to form, the usual suspects continue to predict a different outcome if the same thing is done again.
    The myopic predictions of safety in 'Gun Free Zones' have also been shown to be false.
    Personally, I'd like to see a trial of 'Ninny Free Zones', but in my heart of hearts I know there's really esacping them other than having the good sense to ignore them whenever possible.

  • kevjlang posted at 8:08 am on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Merely putting up a sign does not make a place gun-free. Trusting that everyone will see the sign and obey it does not make a place gun-free. Putting guns into all those gun-free zones and expecting that's going to prevent attacks is just as much a fallacy as putting up a sign and thinking that will prevent anything.

  • npappous posted at 8:11 am on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    npappous Posts: 578

    Ninny-free zones... great idea! But C-Span would be out of business.....[wink]

  • sverige1 posted at 8:19 am on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Well, Dotty:
    You illustrated it to a tee in regard to the "apples vs oranges" concept. Comparing the typical college campus to the US military is not a very meaningful link. I would hasten to say that the members within the US military have "matured" enough to realize the responsibilites of weaponry. The typical college student has not. Couple "break ups" with beer keg parties, not to mention sleepless nights trying to cram for an exam....

    The make-up of the military is much more structured and disciplined. By nature, college is a hodgepodge of idealogy - and most definitely a mixture of maturity levels. In no way under god's green earth would I want to be amongst a couple of thousand of 19 year-olds who just last week probably did something juvenile such as pee by an oleander bush, or had a few too many coors plastic cup servings at last Saturday's keg party.

    No, a 21 year-old at a college/university who goes to a lecture hall of 500 mostly immature classmates to take notes and take a blue book exam doesn't need "the same odds" as a true adult merchant who is going to the bank to deposit his day's receipts/earnings from his small business.

    The chances that the 21 year-old on his way to and from class "needs" a gun is much less than other folks.

  • DottyOA posted at 8:29 am on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    DottyOA Posts: 273

    Can you offer some facts to back up your fallacy statement? I gave some very good historical facts that gun free zones do not work.

  • DottyOA posted at 8:50 am on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    DottyOA Posts: 273

    A 19 cannot legally own a hand gun. A 21 year old legally can. Do you speak of the 500 mostly immature classmates in a lecture hall (we called it an auditorium back in the day) from your own university experience or is it something you heard to be a fact on MSNBC? I appreciate your response. Don't like that a 21 year old can lawfully own a handgun then work through the system to change it.

  • sverige1 posted at 9:08 am on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to DottyOA posted at 8:50 am on Mon, May 6, 2013:

    Well, Dotty...I think you miss the point I was making. A 21 year-old who, perhaps, is a merchant who is transporting monies to a bank...or if she's/he's driving an armoured truck...or if he's in the military...or if he is a responsible CPS worker who is going into a questionable neighborhood. He/she, if responsible and a non-criminal, could legally "carry" the non-automatic weapon(s) for protection. BTW - this is a stance that most of us normal patriots believe in, that is, a system of laws that are reasonable.

    Now, I (along with others) would say "no" to a 21-year old (or anyone) who is merely going to his/her public university to learn from his lecture hall/auditorium the basics of GOV 101, or his/her non-major biology course. He/she is going to a public university with thousands of other people who may or may not be responsible enough to carry a weapon. He is not having hundreds or thousands of dollars on his "person". He is not going to a questionable neighborhood when he takes notes in his non-major biology class. So, yes, I speak for those thousands of "immature" people. I, for one, do not want to go to the airport, bus station, driver's license office, or the social service agency (where people are volitile) - with the fear that hundreds of folks are "carrying" guns and god knows what else - all b/c they're too paranoid to go about their business without thinking the boogeyman is after them.

  • sverige1 posted at 9:40 am on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to kevjlang posted at 8:08 on Mom, May 6, 2013:

    The folks that advocate every whacked out citizen to 'carry' a weapon just anywhere - "because it's our god-given right to" remind me of a classic "All in the Family" episode. It is when Archie was pro-gun, and in his opportunity to do a 5 minute "viewer segment" on a debate show, he advocated that ALL passengers of an airplane have the right to bring a gun.

    If the hijacker(s) decide to draw their weapons in flight and make demands, then each of the 350 or so plane passengers can point all their guns to the hijacker(s) to deter the hijacking attempt.

    Now, we all know what would happen - all it takes is a half-dozen of the passengers to misfire (and they will)....many innocent lives ended. And, chances are the hijacker(s) won't be stopped by novice gun-toters.

    Conclusion: arming every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Heloise in public places to thwart crime simply won't work. It hasn't before.

  • kevjlang posted at 9:42 am on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    How many of those were snuck past real security checkpoints? If the Gun-Free zone's boundaries are not enforced, it is NOT a Gun-Free Zone.

    Just about all public school campuses are drug-free zones, too. If you're ever in the market, just go onto a school campus, and it's all there. Posting signs still doesn't equate to actuality.

  • kevjlang posted at 9:56 am on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    I will leave it to you to prove that the reason these killers chose those venues was purely because they were gun-free zones. I maintain that if they were truly gun-free zones, the killers wouldn't have been able to get their guns into those areas, as they would have had to have dealt with a checkpoint first.

    I'll also leave it up to you to tell me precisely how many guns would have been in each of those areas had they not been designated gun-free and how those gun quantities would have prevented the attacks from happening.

  • kevjlang posted at 10:05 am on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Let's also not forget that people in the military are under frequent close supervision.

    Among my concerns is that there are a lot of things that transpire on college campuses that can change a person quickly. For example, things like fraternity rushes, introduction to drugs, a 7-day cram session, the combined stresses of exams, reports, breakups, bad roommates, etc. Any of these things could turn a healthy and honest person that has no problems passing CHL certification into a basket case with an arsenal.

    However, if you're going to call a place a "gun-free zone" but do nothing to ensure that's so, then I'd probably side with the "drop the sign and let CHL's bring the heat" crowd.

  • gecroix posted at 12:27 pm on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6261

    "I will leave it to you to prove that the reason these killers chose those venues was purely because they were gun-free zones."
    That's a tough one. It's like being asked to 'prove' that people enter a bait camp purely to buy bait, or a Ford lot just to look at the automobiles.
    Prove? Purely? As in, have personal knowledge of exactly why the killer of people in each the designated 'gun free zones' went there to do his killing. Hmmmm. If I had known personally the killer was going to do his dirty deed, I'd have shot the SOB myself.
    Be hard for me to get that first hand info, because I don't knowingly associate with crazy people, killers, trolls, or even Pentagon bombers.
    I do know that that's where people are getting shot en masse, what's that favorite word of the left..disproportionately. I'll let you decide for yourself, or did you already, whether there's no correlation between people going postal and the Post Office being a no gun area. Or the school shootings. Also, gun free zones. Or the Aurora movie theater shooter, who, if your skepticism is warranted, chose the only movie theater within miles that prohibited it's patrons from carrying their weapons..
    Yep. I must admit, that all may be coincidence.
    Then again, I believe there's air, even though it's odorless, tasteless, and invisible.
    I think you are parsing words with your attempt to claim that 'gun free zones' are not truly that because they do not have metal detectors, etc. We put up stop signs, not station a patrol car at every intersection to catch offenders.
    This is not, yet, The People's Republic of Something or Other

  • gecroix posted at 12:37 pm on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6261

    I forgot to add, it's not about " Putting guns into all those gun-free zones and expecting that's going to prevent attacks"
    It's about having the means to respond if/when an attack occurs.
    Surely you have a spare tire. And a fire extinguisher. And a first aid kit. And toilet paper...

  • kevjlang posted at 12:56 pm on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    I believe the Texas Legislature's chambers are gun-free zones, as are probably every legislative chambers in the country. Haven't heard of too many shootings there, although, I'd suspect a lot of crazy people would like to. I believe most courts-of-law are gun-free, too. They aren't just labeled such, they actually have both active and passive measures in place to ensure they are.

    Signs are for literate honest people. The very people that heed the stop signs and gun-free zone signs are the people we aren't worried about.

    There is no evidence whatsoever that James Holmes would not have shot up that theater had it not been a "gun-free" theater. Also, no evidence that Adam Lanza would have changed his mind if he thought he'd encounter someone with a gun. However, if there had been better security to keep someone from sneaking in and out of the theater through the exit doors or to keep people from just driving onto campus with a trunk load of guns and pulling them out in front of the school, perhaps those incidents would have turned out so much different.

    There are at least two sides to the equations regarding gun violence. Regardless of what side you're looking at, if you're not looking at the other side, too, you aren't solving it. Putting a few handguns inside while allowing countless big guns come in is not going to improve safety. We need to keep the unwelcome guns out, and we need to separate the un-trustworthy and their guns. Just because I may be armed doesn't mean that some crazed person isn't going to come in and empty out a couple high-capacity magazines before I've even had a chance to reach into my shirt and unholster my handgun. As long as my gun is holstered, it's as good as not even being there.

  • gecroix posted at 1:31 pm on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6261

    Life is not an episode of CSI.

    "Just because I may be armed doesn't mean that some crazed person isn't going to come in and empty out a couple high-capacity magazines before I've even had a chance to reach into my shirt and unholster my handgun. As long as my gun is holstered, it's as good as not even being there."
    Yes, quite true to the first sentence. The second presupposes that those times when attacked without warning and with overwhelming force preclude any need to be able to respond to being attacked with warning or with time to react. You do know that the mass killing victims were shot one at a time, huh?
    I'm going out on a limb and guessing that the 2nd or 3rd or 6th or any number short of the total number of victims would disagree with your assertion, as do I.
    Kevjlang, if a fully loaded semi-tractor trailer rig doing 70 on an undivided highway blows a front tire just as you approach in the Accord or Jetta from the opposite direction at 70 mph, veers into your path, and hits you head on, you are going to be killed.
    By your logic above, there's no sense in anyone in the other cars on the road wearing seat belts.

  • sverige1 posted at 2:50 pm on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Well, I think seat belts have been proven to generally reduce the impact of a collision. It has not been proven that 300 folks being armed in a crowded theatre will prevent the 1 crazy "theatre-goer" from blasting many members of the event.

    In fact, that 1 crazy "theatre-goer" - if supported by the gun enthusiasts here - he/she would be able assemble through society with any type of weapon he chooses. It is invalid to say that 300 armed people will stop a crazed gunman. That just isn't true.

    Now, it was pointed out in this forum that in Fort Hood, the psychotic psychiatrist was in an area that "didn't allow weapons". Now, how true is that really? Wouldn't the immediate proximity to this so-called "workplace" environment be wrought with plenty of folks with all kinds of weapons?? Knowing that they were at a FORT, for goodness sakes? Hmmmm?

    Fact is, that massacre occurred in a very heavily gun populated location. And, look at the results - 13 killed, 30 injured. Similar to the "no gun zone" Aurora place. The crux of the issue is that guns remain in the hands of looney and volitile folks - and these people have records of worrisome correspondence (email,etc) with people (other psychologists, for example) who probably should have made more noise about their initial concerns. Again, arming a venue with guns/weapons to all of its participants is a low-level and base "solution".

    I suggest these gun enthusiasts "think out of the box" for a change.

  • sverige1 posted at 3:12 pm on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Response to kevjlang posted at 12:56 pm on Mon, May 6, 2013:

    I happen to think that we'd be doing a great service if we fortressed every school into the type of security we have in legislative chambers, courts, et cetera. I envision barbed wired and electric fencing all around the compounds. And, with only one entrance area with armed security officer at this front entrance area. The rest of the school campus may have ancillary officers to take care of the malcreants, as they do already.

    Same for movie theatres. They can afford it. After all, Iron Man 3 made billions of $ at the box office. Worldwide and domestically.

  • gecroix posted at 3:21 pm on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6261

    "I believe the Texas Legislature's chambers are gun-free zones, as are probably every legislative chambers in the country. Haven't heard of too many shootings there, although, I'd suspect a lot of crazy people would like to."

    A gun free Texas Capitol? Think so?

    Associated Press
    "Everyone from lobbyists to lawyers and journalists is rushing to get permits to carry guns inside the Texas Capitol, where legislators already often tote pistols in boots and purses or stow them away inside their desks."
    "The metal detectors were installed at the Capitol's four public entrances in May, a few months after a man fired off a few rounds outside the doors of the main entrance. No one was harmed.
    Republican Gov. Rick Perry, who is known to sometimes carry a .380 caliber pistol, vehemently objected to the metal detectors, saying he didn't want to see airport-like security logjams at a Capitol known for its open and freewheeling culture.
    Texas law allows people to carry a weapon if they have a permit and as long as the gun is concealed. A separate lane for license-holders had to be created so gun-toters could enter without having to pull out their weapons -- or unconceal them -- along with their wallets and keys."
    With the arrival of the metal detectors, permit-holders now get their licenses scanned to make sure they are in good standing and their bags are put through an X-ray scanner."

    Or, more contemporary:
    New York Times
    "AUSTIN, Tex. — At the State Capitol here, a legal concealed gun is the equivalent of an E-ZPass.
    People with a concealed handgun license bypass the metal detector at the State Capitol and enter within a matter of seconds."
    "To enter the sand-colored building, most people — schoolchildren on field trips, out-of-state tourists — must wait in line to pass through a security area outfitted with metal detectors and scanners. But those with state licenses to carry concealed firearms can enter in a matter of seconds. They simply hand their permit to a state trooper, who verifies its authenticity. No metal detector needed."
    "Just as Texas has long embraced its guns, SO HAS THE CAPITOL (emphasis mine). Legislators have walked the terrazzo hallways, attended committee hearings, met with constituents in their offices and voted on the floors of their respective chambers while armed with licensed high-powered pistols tucked beneath their suits or slipped into their boots or purses."
    I expect better of you than that. Avoid the company of trolls. They are brain eaters, like zombies.

  • kevjlang posted at 3:31 pm on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    gecroix, last I checked, there is a far cry between keeping the fox out of the henhouse and shooing it away after he's killed half the chickens.

    As I noted previously, even people pretty adept at disaster response will take a couple of seconds to process the danger and begin reacting. My assertion is that for a deranged individual who's sole motivation is mayhem, the fact that he's going to have at least a couple of seconds to fire before anyone would be likely to have a chance to even point a gun back at him is probably enough for him to believe he can be successful.

    I'm not saying that because CHLs won't necessarily prevent an attack that we should not close the book on the idea of allowing them to be available to stop the attack before the shooter runs out of bullets or targets.

    If you want to hold onto your chickens, the best advise is to keep the fox out to begin with. In the event that the fox manages to get in, then having mechanisms that make it more difficult for him to kill all the chickens, and to get him out of the coop as soon as possible should also be in play. I'm sure that PETA might object if we declaw and de-tooth the fox to make him less of a danger, just as the NRA is objecting to ideas of trying to declaw and de-tooth the would-be crazed gunmen.

  • gecroix posted at 4:54 pm on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6261

    "Just as the NRA is objecting to ideas of trying to declaw and de-tooth the would-be crazed gunmen."
    Only a partially true statement. And only to the extent of what the ideas are.
    If the idea does NOTHING to correct the problem and ONLY further costs or inconveniences honest, law abiding citizens and adds yet another law to the 16,000 or so firearms laws already on the books that are rarely enforced, then the NRA is tooth and nail against that, as they should be, and, for that matter, as our representatives should be. ALL of them. Especially the man at the top who, conveniently for him, yet oddly for a 'Constitutional scholar', cannot seem to recall that 'preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution' thingy, despite having repeated it twice.
    Next time you're in an asking mood, ask an anti-gun friend or acquaintance how many laws the Aurora shooter broke, or the Columbine shooters, or the Sandy Hook killer. Ask them how many EXISTING lawbreakers who fail the EXISTING background check laws were prosecuted for falsifying their 4473 forms, a federal felony with a penalty of up to 10 YEARS in prison for EACH question falsely answered. Here's a clue for them: It's less than 1/10th of one percent.
    New laws needed when we don't enforce the one's we have?
    Anyway, continuing, ask what they personally have ever done to promote gun safety and responsible firerams ownership, besides pray that 100 million firearms will magically disappear, or everybody will suddenly become friends for the first time since time began. Other than repeat DNC talking points, that is. Ask them if they ever heard of Eddy Eagle. Ask if they have ever taken a child to a gun range or even taught them firearms safety. Other than the ones who give 'zero tolerance' suspensions to grade schoolers for pointing their finger 'like a gun'. No sense talking to what can't be fixed.
    Ask them what the percentage of CHL holders are who committ crimes related to carrying that weapon, or, as a subset of the population, what proportion of ALL crimes they committ.
    Ask if they know what they are talking about on any other subject, having failed these so badly.
    The evidence would suggest that you have a better chance at living a long and safe life as an NRA member than a 'progressive'.
    But, I digress. My original intent before my sidetrack was to remind you that the 'last time you checked' there weren't any gun toters in the Texas Legislature, either.
    Everybody makes mistakes. At least I don't think you do it to intentionally BS up an argument.
    Might not be too late to save you from the trolls or zombies.
    Six of one...

  • IHOG posted at 5:12 pm on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    No mass shootings except in "gun free" zones?
    Proof that a sign on the door has no deterence value? No.
    But that sign does tell a shooter their victims will be defensless.

    CHL holders are not gun novices. They took a gun handling and safety course after passing a back ground check more intensive than the background checks needed to buy a gun. The process ensures they are the most reliable gun owners. May not be perfect but far better than thinking a "gun free" sign serves any purpose.
    The fact that violent crimes are falling where CHL is legal should tell the anti gun people something.

  • kevjlang posted at 5:35 pm on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    gecroix, I guess you just found a couple of days where I must not have been paying attention.

    Those articles do present the scenario that I've been alluding to. Make sure that unwelcome guns don't come in. If you want to let licensed weapons in, make sure you have the security in place to ensure only those come in. Are these kinds of checks going to be planned for and funded in this bill allowing CHLs on college campuses?

    Anyway, take down the "gun-free zone" signs from a shopping mall or movie theater, and let a crazed gunman enter, and I'll bet he'd be just as capable of mayhem as the perps that did it in the supposedly "gun-free" theater and mall last year. There just aren't enough gun carriers to statistically alter their chances of getting their kicks by blowing off a few rounds.

    I agree with your comment that we should do a lot better at enforcing the laws we have. On the other hand, when we know that we have laws that have gaping loopholes in them that may render the laws useless, then why shouldn't we close those loopholes? I know that getting rid of the gun-show exemption and applying checks to individual sales would be tough to manage, and would still only show their potential if we also worked harder to break down the underworld, black market, and gray market transfers. As long as guns are available through sources other than the open market, it will be extremely tough to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally or chemically impaired.

  • sverige1 posted at 6:07 pm on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054


    Oh, jesus mary and joseph on the cross...the bulk of C.H.L. "holders" participated in a few Mickey Mouse gun shooting range activities, and received a photocopied "certificate of participation".

    A C.H.L 'license' didn't even have as much effort put into it as folks who emassed an online real estate licensure. "Reliable gun owners" - my foot. Aside from some protection in the home (which is logical), many of your fellow gun-toters are obsessed about proving how much they know, and are big kids who haven't stopped playing cowboys and Indians.

    Sheesh, some of you folks need to get out more and find a new hobby.

  • gecroix posted at 6:35 pm on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6261

    Why do obese people choose DQ over GNC when they want a chocolate dip cone?
    Why do folks looking to get horiziontal go to bars rather than Bible study?
    It's a mystery.
    Why do you need to check the honest CHL holders if allowed on campus? They've already been checked more than the Governor was to get his job. Do you mean check EVERYBODY else? Kind of defeats the purpose of using common sense in the first place. Right now, the answer in use is use NO sense at all.
    Again, it's BECAUSE there's no ready way to be sure that NOBODY can committ firearms mayhem that we need to get better at letting people take care of themselves. If they don't want to, fine. The notion that a bunch, or even one, CHL holder would sit quietly by and do nothing IF some loon started shooting up the place around him is, imho, waaaay out in left field. Real troll level stuff. Nutty as Aunt Martha's fruitcake.
    He doesn't have to be a combat veteran or a world class speed shooter to make some effort in self defense or defense of others. We don't argue that people need to be firemen or doctors before owning a first aid kit or extinguisher, lest they foul up or be unsuccessful at using them.
    Who's going to pay for metal detectors and attendants at them?
    Easy. All the fine folks who say they are the answer should pony up and match mouth with money. They are the same characters that say more background checks would have prevented the latest mass shootings, when they would not.
    Call it a fee or tax on doing the same things over again, looking for a different outcome.
    Only fair. If a CHL holder saved one of their hides, they won't have paid a dime for his license or firearm or ammo or practice or take any risk in the effort.
    In fact, they'd most likely bad mouth him after the fact.
    'Act stupidly', I believe is the term, like the Cambridge Police were said to have done some years back.

  • DottyOA posted at 8:00 pm on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    DottyOA Posts: 273

    Surely you must know that there are people carrying guns everywhere you go and they may or may not be criminals. Now back to the University...When I went to my university the large classes were of the fresh and soph class. Most were either 18 or 19. When I was a senior all my classes were small with maybe 15 to 20 people and most were 20 to 21 years old.. I don't know how immature you were when you were 21 to make you feel all 21 year olds are too immature to own or carry a gun at 21 but I have been around guns all my life and respected them then as I do know. I never thought there would come a time in my life where I would feel the need to carry a weapon for protection of my self and my fellow citizens. Unfortunately I do now and I will continue to do so. I pray I never have to use my weapon for self defense and will always steer clear of gun free zones whenever possible.

  • DottyOA posted at 8:02 pm on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    DottyOA Posts: 273

    With all due respect there is no reasonable response to this post. It simply makes no sense. I do agree that All in the Family was a great sitcom.

  • DottyOA posted at 8:26 pm on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    DottyOA Posts: 273

    I respectfully submit this makes absolutely no sense.

  • DottyOA posted at 8:30 pm on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    DottyOA Posts: 273

    So you are OK with a life of what we now have to put up with at the airports? Have you ever been humiliated by a TSA thug searching you in front of everyone in the terminal? Do we really want to give up our rights in the futile search of total security? You know it won't happened and to think it could happen is so far fetched.

  • DottyOA posted at 9:53 pm on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    DottyOA Posts: 273

    "There just aren't enough gun carriers to statistically alter their chances of getting their kicks by blowing off a few rounds."

    Where did you get those statistics? If a CHL carrier is in the crowd and stops the "perp" from "blowing off more than a few rounds" would not that be the best resolution until the police arrived to rope off the crime scene?? Regardless, even if it is only one, two or three people carrying concealed in a crowd of 300 it may be enough to convince the would be perp from carrying out his/her horrendous act ( that is if it is not a gun free zone and then you are on your own). Might save your life. You should thank those of use who are law abiding citizens who carry concealed weapons. We may just save your life one day.

  • DottyOA posted at 10:09 pm on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    DottyOA Posts: 273

    You just don't have a clue as to why a person has a CHL. If it was to be a gun toter then it would not be concealed. Do you get or understand the difference? If the gun is showing to everyone then they will know you have a gun in your possession. The point of CHL is "concealed". My great great grandmother was a Choctaw Indian and I can tell you that she would not appreciate your insensitive "Cowboy and Indian" remark. I sure miss Ronald Reagan, don't you, sverige1? Have a nice evening.

  • DottyOA posted at 11:11 pm on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    DottyOA Posts: 273

    " just as the NRA is objecting to ideas of trying to declaw and de-tooth the would-be crazed gunmen."
    Seriously?? Are you really serious about that statement? Think about it. Do you really think the NRA wants to declaw and de-tooth the would be crazed gunman? That just doesn't even make any sense in regards to the NRA and our mission. You obviously don't understand the 2nd Amendment. The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Perhaps one day it might just sink in.

  • kevjlang posted at 11:30 pm on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Who said a CHL holder or any other person wouldn't try to do something if given the chance? People are involved in traffic accidents all the time where the only flaw was normal human reaction time. When a gunman starts shooting, he pretty much gets a free couple seconds. Not because no one wants to do something sooner, but merely because it's not physically possible.

  • kevjlang posted at 11:55 pm on Mon, May 6, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Of course we check everyone going into secured areas. If you allow CHL holders to pass unscrutinized, then everyone will claim to be a CHL holder.

    One thing we do want to ensure is that the agencies processing the CHL applications doesn't get overwhelmed and start shortcutting the process. I doubt people that survived the process would like to see people get them that aren't thoroughly vetted and really aren't qualified.

    Again, I'm not saying that we shouldn't let qualified people bring their guns into certain settings. I am saying that CHL protectors should not be our only option. We must do something to keep the unwanted guns out of those areas.

  • DottyOA posted at 12:03 am on Tue, May 7, 2013.

    DottyOA Posts: 273

    You just made a perfectly good reason for a person to have a CHL, kevjlang. What do we do here in this situation? Hope the CHL guy scares off the deranged gunman before he kills someone or no CHL person around and wait for the cops to get there and investigate the crime scene while the county morgue carries off the dead? Think about it seriously. Just for the heck of it why not go to a CHL class and meet the people in the class. You will find professional people, laborers, technicians, doctors, etc. etc. These people are on your side. I am on your side for your safety. I don't want some scumbag to have open season on my fellow citizens.

  • gecroix posted at 12:47 am on Tue, May 7, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6261

    Again, so what?
    The existence of reaction time means that some might not be able to make it injury free, so absent the perfect outcome, might as well just not try at all. Nobody wins but the bad guy? Or, the other driver?
    That would make a great 'progressive' litmus test for firearms carry and use. If you can't win every time, then what's the use in trying to ever win, and thus, no need for carry.
    In a land with Morlocks, is it good to be an Eloi?

  • gecroix posted at 1:19 am on Tue, May 7, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6261

    Focusing on the problem, my conclusion is that the criminal or crazy person is more hazard than the good guy, even carrying a straw and spitwads, so maybe we should first focus on criminals and crazies.
    Of course, that's coming from a guy who doesn't blame McDonalds for causing people to get fat.

  • kevjlang posted at 7:05 am on Tue, May 7, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    gecroix, that's my point exactly. The guns in the hands of good guys, whoever they may be, may help stop an act from lasting long enough to spend all bullets or targets, but it isn't a preventative measure. Keeping the bad guys from even getting in and from having destructive weapons must be part of the solution. If a good guy with a gun stops the loon after he's killed ten, it's good for the many that become survivors, but still not so good for the families of the ten. Also, all of the survivors will still have to live with the horror the experienced.

  • sverige1 posted at 7:09 am on Tue, May 7, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Oh good grief Dotty. "Cowboys and Indian" phrase has been a common and innocuous phrase - like - forever, OMG. I do not care if one hides a gun or flashes it out for all to see, as if to show he is a real " man" . You know my point, so there is no use in being obtuse. Simply put, no regular citizen needs a gun on a college campus. Indian, white man, cowboy, fascist neocon, no common citizen. Go to class, take notes, study, live life and stop being so paranoid of the boogeyman sneaking up behind you. They're probably going to seek someone else with more bling to rob and attack anyway.

  • sverige1 posted at 7:22 am on Tue, May 7, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Well, Dotty...maybe one day you will get your wish and you will be able to "carry" your C.H.L. to the remedial reading class so it can be clearer to you, LOL. I simply mean that we can fortress our schools with money that would be spent on supped up stadiums or state of the art technology in schools. And the film industry's profits from Iron Man can fortress our movie theaters.

  • gecroix posted at 8:52 am on Tue, May 7, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6261

    Yes. Nothing is a preventive measure all the time, except death.
    Absent mass attack, a firearm in the hands of a civilian is defensive equipment, not used to go out and kick in doors and dispatch criminals. It's purpose is to be used to try to end a threat that has come to you, not vice versa.
    If human nature could be altered to prevent criminal activity...but, no sense dwelling on the impossible...
    Take some time to search actual saves involving the legitimate use of firearms, when a homeowner or ordinary citizen in their hhouse or out and about prevents or stops a criminal act by use of their legally carried weapon, often without even shooting. MSNBC and CBS and other trolls would have people believe it never happens. That all guns are in the hands of bad people, because all guns are bad, ergo only bad people would have them.
    First, though, you have to decide what a bad guy is.
    In this country, there exist people who consider anyone with a firearm to be a bad guy.
    They can't be fixed.
    The only thing that stops bad people with guns, is good people with guns.
    Also note that survivors living with the horror of a shooting beats the hell out of no survivors at all, and some families not losing a loved one beats all of them suffering the loss.
    Oddly, the 'progressive' folks so eager to trot out the 'if it saves just one life' mantra ignore their own entreaty when the subject is an honest armed citizen saving a life.
    Why do you suppose that is?

  • kevjlang posted at 9:43 am on Tue, May 7, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Good guys with guns could provide a safety net in case other measures fail. However, unless we attempt to block the bad guys from getting in with their guns, we're leaving the safety of everyone to the luck of the draw. I think we're failing if we're happy to say to a grieving family that at least there weren't more people dead.

    I fully understand that preventative measures have a tendency toward inconvenience. Most of them, however, I'd argue are far less of a hassle than having someone open fire on your gathering.

  • kevjlang posted at 9:46 am on Tue, May 7, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    DottyOA, you keep mistaking me for someone saying "No" to the idea of allowing CHL's to be there.

  • sverige1 posted at 9:50 am on Tue, May 7, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Well, I do not think we are talking about a private resident guarding his plasma TV or his wife's jewelry box. These cases are mass public gatherings where the gunmen are not just after a few valuables. They are crazy and will shoot at anyone whether he is packing a gun or not. These lunatics are not impressed if you hold a CHL or a Phd or a Fox Kids Club card.

    Your little gun will not lessen the carnage and tragedy. That is why we should evolve to a gunfree mindset. Do not come to a public place with all of your little guns to show your knowledge or "manhood". If you do, stay away from me and my family so your rogue little pistol doesn't go off near us.

  • kevjlang posted at 10:12 am on Tue, May 7, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Believe me, I'd be thankful if someone got a shot off before I got hit. However, I'd also be angry that nothing was done to prevent others getting hurt or killed.

    When you have a crazed person that feels the worst risk is that he kills no one, and that he has no expectation of survival, he's going to be happy as long as he gets to start firing. He has already decided that he's not going to be around to post the death toll to his Facebook Wall.

    Let's try to keep the crazed gunmen OUT of our venues.

  • gecroix posted at 10:27 am on Tue, May 7, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6261

    CARRYING is an inconvenience, kevjlang, especially in hot weather.
    I/we don't mind being inconvenienced, as long as it serves some real useful purpose related to what the original problem was.
    These latest machinations by 'gun controllers' does nothing but highlight their own subterfuge and ignorance.
    "Fire two blasts" says all that needs saying about the 'point man' for the effort, and anyone who'd not immediately call him out for being a dam fool.

  • kevjlang posted at 10:55 am on Tue, May 7, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    What I'm saying is that the NRA has been really short on proposals for how to keep crazy people and criminals from using legal channels to get guns. Perhaps there aren't a whole lot of good options, but so far, their most prominent voice with regards to any ideas is "No". It would be refreshing to hear them say "No, but have you considered...."

    It's not that I don't want crazed gunmen put out of commission while they're trying to shoot a bunch of people. However, what I really want is for us to do something to stop these crazed gunmen from having the gun in their hands to begin with. I'm sick of crazed gunmen being able to claim any number of victims.

    Why should you and other CHL holders be relied on to provide the ONLY avenue of defense from crazed gunmen in public venues? Do you love the prospect of being able to shoot some lunatic so much that you will oppose every option for making sure those lunatics aren't able to enter your venue armed for an attack? I tend to think not. I tend to think that you'd rather shoot if needed but would rather it not be needed in the first place.

  • kevjlang posted at 11:04 am on Tue, May 7, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    Open season is not an option. I would walk through 1000 metal detectors per day to reduce my risk of getting shot by some lunatic while I'm eating dinner.

    Of course I don't expect total safety and security, but I see no reason to reject all options for prevention.

    Those TSA checkpoints are not much of a distraction at all. You'll have to come up with a better analogy of how bad safety and security can get.

  • sverige1 posted at 4:20 pm on Tue, May 7, 2013.

    sverige1 Posts: 4054

    Just curious, geocroix -

    Do you go about your day to day life worrying about "carrying" a weapon at a public place so that perhaps one day you will get the "thrill" of being "hero" ?

    Maybe one day you will thwart a gunman and keep him from killing 100 people (and he will kill only 20) - and you will save the day and live to tell about it.

  • gecroix posted at 12:21 pm on Wed, May 8, 2013.

    gecroix Posts: 6261

    It's only one vote, but mine will continue to go to folks like Craig who don't have their head in a dark body cavity, and will be withheld from anyone I could have cast a vote for who does.
    A check putting money where mouth is will be going to his campaign fund.

  • DottyOA posted at 8:26 pm on Wed, May 8, 2013.

    DottyOA Posts: 273

    sverige1....I suppose that geocroix carries a gun for the same reason I pack heat. For my protection along with my family's protection. Always remember the reason people like me and geocroix pack heat is not for the public at large but for ourselves and our family's safety. Is it that hard to understand why the people carry concealed? We just want to meet our Lord on our own terms. Once again, your post is so trivial and juvenile.

  • DottyOA posted at 8:28 pm on Wed, May 8, 2013.

    DottyOA Posts: 273

    kevjlang,,,then you are certainly borderline. Not easy to get a CHL. Sorry if you agree with those who carry concealed but you sometimes sound as though you are against it.

  • kevjlang posted at 9:14 pm on Wed, May 8, 2013.

    kevjlang Posts: 4036

    DottyOA, no problem. I sometimes have a hard time figuring out where my firm stances are on the concept of public safety in some of these settings. I'm still having trouble grasping the concept of why someone would even get the idea to threaten these settings. We're trying to grasp at any options we can think of to deal with something that not long ago would have been a ridiculous premise. I mean, who in there right mind would have ever thought to storm first and second grade classrooms?

  • carol4com posted at 2:34 pm on Thu, May 30, 2013.

    carol4com Posts: 66

    I agree. There are many situations at college where the presence of a gun could be fatal for innocent bystanders. Not a great idea.

  • carol4com posted at 2:36 pm on Thu, May 30, 2013.

    carol4com Posts: 66

    ..driving a car...