Since several states already allow this, I am sure they had many cases ready to validate their claims, right? Must be hundreds.

I would never teach in a higher education setting if students were allowed to bring guns into my classroom. That is a situation just waiting to explode.

10 states already allow campus carry, some for almost a decade, so where is all the blood in the History department?

Must be the same place all that blood from all the concealed carry permit holders is, huh?

I am sure the posters here will also come up with at least hundreds of cases over the years. Any minute now, lol

What I said was just factual. Firearms are not a joking matter in my opinion.

Note the dates:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x364698

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x310169

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/http:/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x322788

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x382537

Those gun owners can't be trusted.

I am sure that poster did not want that number posted, lol

Last edited Thu Aug 25, 2016, 12:47 PM - Edit history (2)

Are there any other identifiable groups that you would like to restrict due to the behaviors
of a minority of their members? That approach seems to be quite popular
in certain political circles lately...

Short answer - none.

No law you can create will stop a criminal from carrying illegally.

But please tell us you are at least able to tell the difference between a criminal and a law abiding citizen that jumped through all the hoops to get a permit?

Now, use all your Google Fu skills and find us a school shooting that was done by a person with a permit. (That is ... if you haven't already looked, found bupkus and are now just grasping at straws to hear the sound of your own voice.)

We'll wait here.

...for to do so would reveal their arguments to be faith-based, at best.

Or just conflating all criminals that use guns with people with lawful carry permits and pretending they don't see any difference.

Then there's always the more universal and "well thought out" Grabnutz argument; "Guns and anyone that has a gun is icky, except for the police ... the same police that I've been whining about for the past year ... only they should have guns".

Last edited Wed Aug 24, 2016, 02:54 PM - Edit history (1)

I have been fighting it with a remedy that works on all but the most case-hardened
of True Believers: verifiable statistics

(Probably Social Science or another "soft science&quot

One of the things I like about one of my best friends is that he doesn't believe that character correlates with political orientation. Ironically, he's a completely irrational gun hater......and falls for every gun restriction prevarication out there. (Like me, he's never voted GOP)

In an e-mail exchange I had with Dr. Gary Kleck, he commented that criminologists tend to stick with whatever belief system on gun violence they started with........confirming what research has proven. When confronted with evidence that contradicts a person's beliefs, most folks get upset, and double-down on their irrational beliefs.

Edited to add:

http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

Wow! Holding to a set of beliefs, regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary.

People like Hemenway and their ilk sound more like a 14th century Jesuit in some remote monastery than "scientists".

If medical science worked that way we'd probably still be bled to remove all the "evil humours" and balance our "bile".

I've always respected Kleck and his work, mainly because he was willing to adapt and change his POV based on what he actually found, even when it was contrary to his initial hypothesis. He didn't take the easy road like so many others have.

"There simply is no legal justification to deny licensed, law-abiding citizens on campus the same measure of personal protection they are entitled to elsewhere in Texas."

should read:

"There simply is no legal justification to deny licensed, law-abiding citizens on campus the same illusory measure of personal protection they are entitled to elsewhere in Texas."

I added illusory because personal protection is an illusion. Guns give the illusion of protection. If they really protected there would be no police officers killed.

And any minimal protection that they might give will be negated by the increased risk of violence that will be the outcome of allowing thousands of students to carry guns on campus.

As DonP observed above:

Hidden.

Last edited Tue Aug 23, 2016, 11:19 PM - Edit history (1)

If so, kindly show it to us. I would think that such a shooting would be all over our
'if it bleeds, it leads' mainstream media.

Rape and assault can be passed off as 'he said, she said' (and too often are)
It's kinda hard to deny a gunshot wound or shooting death.

Re: campus carry so eff off. My thoughts and opinions are as valid as yours gunsucker.

Back to homophobia I guess. I predict it won't catch on as much as ammosexual.

The difference however, is that your thoughts and opinions on this matter don't bounce off of reality nearly as well as those who you go out of your way to attack.

Faith-based movements are also emotion-based...

Actually very sad.

so you acknowledge that there is a sexual assault crisis on our college campuses, so would it seem to reason to allow those students the proper tools to defend themselves.

Don asked a very legitimate question, do you have an answer?

These three professors will now be able to sit around faculty parties and tell of when
they stood up against that icky gun culture and how The Man shut them down...

any calculus teachers?

They seem to have, shall we say, "flexible" standards and situational ethics on these things.

On one hand they demand that a gun must be able to magically protect it's owner all the time and in every situation or carrying is a waste of time and a danger to the public.

On the other hand, every time a concealed carrier actually does protect themselves or their family with their gun, well ... then it's a total fluke, an accident, an anomaly and won't be repeated.

But it's really not a double standard (LoL)

Easy peasy to understand, ... you just have to speak stupid fluently.

And yet, governments keep as many of them as possible in as wide a variety as possible and it trains to bring as many to bear as quickly as possible.

"And any minimal protection that they might give will be negated by the increased risk of violence that will be the outcome of allowing thousands of students to carry guns on campus."

"...governments keep as many of them as possible in as wide a variety as possible and it trains to bring as many to bear as quickly as possible."

Good argument for anarchy.

Guilty as charged.

And how safe has that made this country?

The state exists to project violence either on behalf of its elite or (in the rarest of cases) its constituents. ALL law is predicated upon the threat of violence for those who would break the law and/or resist the state in enforcing the law. The different levels of law, i.e. infraction, misdemeanor, felony, etc. merely speak to the amount of delay until violence is deemed appropriate but all offenders will be brought to heel either by surrender or by violence.

It is the inseparable definition of nation-state.

Please keep this simple fact in mind as you petition for the state to be the sole possessor of the means of violence.

Other than differences of scale?

If not, why encourage individual violence?

Why do you resent the former while facilitating the latter?

An alien occupying force from another planet?

An oppressive overlord crushing the American peasantry?

You do realize that the British left after your revolution, correct?

those who hold power?

You neglect post-War for Independence events such as miners protecting themselves from hired "detectives;" the 1946 battle of Athens, Tennessee; Deacons for Defense protecting African American civil rights leaders from the KKK which often included local police and other government officials; The Black Panthers; etc.

Why do you resent individuals protecting themselves and their families but make excuses for the elite protecting their power?

If so, that explains much of this dialogue.

If so, that explains much of your resentment towards individuals being allowed to defend themselves.

Your link does not support this. This was organized violence, not government sanctioned violence.

Why do you resent their defending themselves while making excuses for the KKK?

a governmental action.

the movie mississippi burning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Burning

The pair find it difficult to conduct interviews with the local townspeople, as Sheriff Ray Stuckey and his deputies exert influence over the public and are linked to a branch of the Ku Klux Klan.

...seems to me to be both ahistorical and frankly Pollyannish.

Consider the more unpleasant implications of a Trump presidency, given many of his
public pronunciations and the behavior of his voters....

of the electorate.

And guns make it relatively easy to commit violence.

And not just 'gun violence'- any violence:

http://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm

And even more amazing how some never consider it.

every preferred policy statement is a declaration that those who resist ought to bear the brunt of the state's capacity for violence.

is not a violent act, its a justified response to violence.

And the idea that carrying a gun makes campuses safer is a solution in search of a problem. Texas college campuses are quite safe, especially compared to the rest of the state. Where the gun carriers are.

Violence: is a world wide problem; the US does not have a monopoly.

What I infer from your history of assertions on the topic:
'Restricting weapons would have a positive effect on violence.'

My reaction:
THE MOST weapon restrictive areas of the US are prisons.
Prisons are far from non-violent.

My conclusion:
Working on anything that doesn't solve the causes and issues behind violence all of the following:
A waste, a lie, political agenda without a real purpose, a distraction, a talking point for a number of politicians and a means for certain people to hold and maintain power.

Show me a modern society that doesn't rely on violence as the 'stick', regardless of what they use as the 'carrot'.

if FBI figures are accurate enough to escape the scourge of "NRAtalkingPoints®." Don't you concede that murder rates -- by gun or anything else -- have gone down?

why are more guns needed?

...as well as other crimes, even on college campuses- a fact that you're well aware of because
you were reminded of it just last week.

Displays of faux ignorance do not speak well of the person doing the displaying:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172198417#post121

Murder is not the only crime that occurs on campuses- but you knew that already


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clery_Act

Making Texas campuses very safe places indeed.

Carrying on campus is indeed a solution in search of a problem.

This is like giving the pollution caused by internal combustion engined vehicles
as a reason to ban electric cars.

Out of tens if not hundreds of thousands of permit holders.

So I bet you can figure the percentage of 3 out of 40,000