Handgun approval, different mentality to the UK.

[Christel]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ma ... iversities

Yes you have all guessed it, I would not be voting in favour of this if I was in that situation.
Can you just imagine, some dick runs amok in a library, shoots left right and all over the place because his fiancée decided to marry his dad instead of him,(I read that in the Sun this morning, oh dear) kills 14, several people all draw their handgun in self defence and the police turns up...chaos ensues.

Not really ideal is it?
I mean that by the way, no matter what statistics you throw at me (Chuck :) ) it simply is not a good situation.

[Dangermouse]

No more home work then!

This conversation could bound off in all sorts of directions but the fact remains that firearms are reasonably accessible in the USA and whatever is happening in the greater community is likely to be mirrored in the colleges.
The Police are already faced with arriving on scene and finding that they have to make life changing decisions as to who should and should not be having the firearms. I would be interested to find out how often this goes wrong. Of course it will probably only get reported when it does go wrong.

The world will be watching to see how this story plays out, ideally it will be the last we ever hear of it, but I can't help thinking that with so many young adults in the mix it is a recipe for trouble,

DM

[Christel]

You are absolutely spot on there when you say the police are arriving on the scene and they have split seconds to decide who exactly it is that are allowed to have the handguns that are being pointed very likely in many directions.

....and then someone knocked a chair over and everybody panicked.

[Mike357]

Question - If people carried concealed handguns and a situation arose, unless the police were round the corner or it was a hostage type scenario, would the event not be over (escape/shooting etc) by the time the police arrived.

Also, would it not make sense to holster your gun when the police arrived?

[Blackstuff]

So Texas University does a degree in colouring-in or was that picture deliberately chosen to evoke an imagine of primary/junior school children and with 'evil' guns amongst them :roll: Jeez the press NEVER stop! :x

[Porcupine]

You can already legally carry a gun on campus in most states - but most (though not all) colleges have an academic 'no guns' rule. In Utah, schools and universities are not allowed to make rules forbidding firearms. There has never been a school shooting in Utah.

There have been instances where armed students and faculty have prevented spree shootings before they could develop (e.g. Appalachian Law School attempted massacre, armed students neutralized the gunman), as well as instances where they have helped bring massacres to a close (e.g. University of Texas Massacre, students retrieved guns from their vehicles and joined in the firefight on the side of police).

There have also been incidents were no-gun policies had a real (and undoubtedly negative) impact on the outcome e.g. Virginia Tech - concealed handgun permit holder was in the building, minus his gun because of school rules. Stayed under his desk unarmed. Police never showed up until after it was all over.

Fundamentally, a university is no different to any other public space. I am not aware of any instance of 'friendly fire' as postulated here ever having occurred in the age of concealed carry (over 25 years now, though much longer in Vermont!), at universities or anywhere else. When concealed carry laws were introduced these fears were expressed - it was said there would be blood in the streets. It never happened. Murders, violent crime, gun murders, and handgun murders all fell, and none of these kinds of nightmare scenarios ever emerged in the real world.

People being able to defend themselves? I think it's an excellent situation. But if you take the attitude that it's bad regardless of any facts or reason then there's not much anyone can do about that :lol:

Of course, the whole massacre thing is a complete red herring. Despite the media attention they grab, they are extremely rare and make up only an insignificant fraction of American (or world) murders. If school shootings represented a large proportion of the murders Americans had to worry about, they'd have very low murder rate. As it happens they have a fairly high one, and almost all of these are inner city gang killings.

[Chuck]

Christel, of course no offence luv, I will not decry your right to be a victim of rape or murder or whatever if you do not decry my right to save and protect a life (MINE) if I can or that of others.
----------------
All those red herrings about police /others shooting the wrong guy etc etc are just that, red herrings, the police NEVER arrive at a scene that quickly anyway: the comments made show ignoroance of the FACTS surrounding a gunfight, facts established by the FBI, so I would suppose they know a bit or two about it. There IS a protocal for the aftermath of a shooting, which you WILL learn if you attend professional training! If the police are trigger happy then they should attend the same (and invariably better) training that is available to law abiding and responsible citizens.

If people prefer a massacre to a shoot out or being raped, or murdered in cold blood as against the reponsibilities that come with carrying a weapon then so be it. If grovelling and begging for their life on their knees in front of a thug who will kill them anyway, no doubt after some serious anal rape in front of an already dying loved one makes them feel moraly superior then fine, tell it to their orphans and loved ones who attend the inquest.

We have nutters running amok with knive etc so WHY oh WHY do people always insist on blaming the fcking gun, not the fckwit nutter. Guns DO NOT make anyone angry or KILL anyone, it is merely an inanimate object, as stated a million times before.

As usual the arguments is that no one should have the right to carry ANY weapon because either "I do not want one" which is a personal choice albeit sutid IMO but then again people will NOT choose to exercise that right, if they had it. or "I want to be a victim instead" a stupid selfish fcking attitude by people who have NO value on ANY life, especially if they have kids or dependants, OR more importantly and most LIKELY, because we continually allow the CRIMINAL to dictate our way of life and no amount of late arrival over excited and poorly trained (no disrespect) street cops wiill ever save the life of a person in that situation, whether that person chooses to be a victim or not.

ANY person denying the right of simple affordable protection to ANYONE is just as heinous a criminal and coward as any murderer or rapist - and they should feel just as guilty when they read of someone becoming a victim of such crimes (they might otherwise have survived) thanks to their selfish prejudices and wishes.

By running and hiding in the corner, wringing ones hands and bleating on about how bad guns are etc etc you show yourselves as hypocrites, thanks to crimes like that and the standard respjnses a sseen here, shooters are reinforcing the widely held (and misguided) belief that they cannot be trusted with ANY fcking guns, think on it!

This is not about carrying weapons or handguns it is abour RIGHTS, yes them...the ones you lost when shooters stood around like spares at a wedding after Dunblane etc, hiding away like common criminals and ACCEPTING full responsibilty for something NONE of you would ever have done because NO ONE defended you...just like victims of crime!

[Christel]

I know Chuck, I am not disagreeing with you on all points, some things I agree with you on but overall I simply cannot accept chavs, inbreeds, Neanderthals, halfbrains and the like to have access to handguns. There are quite a few of them out there, you know.
I would rather give up my "right" to carry (if I had one) if that meant the above mentioned creatures did not have a chance in hell to carry.

[Sim G]

I'm in agreement with Chuck.

And the "scenario" in the library you've illustrated is exactly the reason this Bill came before the Texan legisators. The Guardian failed to mention who was actually behind this bill, instead they "insinuated" that it was Republican politicians. Well, it was the students themselves. There were some that even found a loop-hole in the present law and began to "open carry" on campus.

The majority of "school shootings" that have occured have been perpatrated by peers of the student body. Apart from their percieved greivances that caused them to commit such atrocities, those perpatrators were also well aware that campus was a "gun free" zone, hence they would have plenty of un-challenged time to kill as many as they could. Those students that raised ths in Texas did so in order to ensure their personal security.

So obviously, the big question is such a bill likely to be the cause of more massacres in the college environment. Previous overwhelming evidence of when CCW was introduced in any environment, this did not happen. The reverse is true. Instances of crime dropped and people were safer. There is absolutely nowhere when CCW was introduced that armed crime went up and more people became victims.

And, it was only in the last couple of years when a Palestinian gunman attempted to run amok in an Israeli university. Perhaps spurred on his target selection by the close ties of the US and Israel, that he chose a university thinking it too, would be gun free. An Israeli student present, who was also a soldier, brought the attack o a very, very quick close, via the use of his concealed weapon.....

And as for foregoing your "right" to ensure that chavs and half-breeds etc are denied, have you thought that if the good people, and there are more out there than the bad, exercised their "right", then the undesirables would very likely choose more acceptable career paths or life-style choices? The criminal class should be dragged up to the decent peoples standard, not the decent drop theirs to appease, coerce or avoid the criminals.....

Thomas Jefferson said, "Those that are prepared to sacrifice liberty for the sake of security, will receive, nor deserve either". And Churchill said, "There is no greater fool than he who attempts to appease the crocodile, in the vane hope he will be eaten last."

[Porcupine]

Christel, I certainly cannot agree. I'd defend the right of anyone to possess and carry arms and to defend themselves, even if they are an unwashed peasant. Though equally support the full force of the law being used against them (or anyone else) if they actually misuse a weapon and so put others at risk. People ought to be innocent until proven guilty, I would never circumscribe their lives because I deem them too uneducated or too stupid.

But either way, the fact is it's not a problem. Why ban, not only the supposed idiots but everyone regardless, and so forgo the beneficial effects of concealed carry, just because of an irrational fear that does not manifest itself in reality? I'd hardly ban airplanes just because I have a fear they they will rain from the sky and destroy my home - clearly this does not and will not happen, though you might forgive people in 1903 for having that initial concern.