Texas to allow guns on college campuses.

[JSanders]

gun ownership is fine and all, but as long as the owners are required by law to take the same training cops do.

i can see the headlines now "hundreds wounded as three armed students discharge their weapons in a large crowd in an attempt to bring down one shooter."

great idea.

To carry a pistol you still must have a Texas Concealed Handgun License (CHL), which requires classrom and field training.

Let's solve the gun problem with more guns... Yeah there ya go. The mental abilities of people in this country never cease to amaze me.

A criminal will carry a firearm regardless of the law. What advantage does allowing the murder/robber/rapist to be the only person carrying a firearm present? Don't you think the fact that a few civilians are carrying firearms might make a criminal think twice before pulling a gun out in/before/after class or trying to rob somebody?

[hi its me alec]

Looks like the NRA would be pleased with this thread

[trism]

how fucking dumb.

21 mass shootings since 1999 suggests that letting more people have guns is a fucking stupid law.

In australia, there has been 0 mass shootings since the gun laws were radically changed in 1996.

in sorry Americans, but your gun laws are fucking retarded, and all of this "right to bear arms" is a fucking farce.

[Anonymoose]

This thread...wow

[Mr.M]

oh america

They should allow weed instead of guns

[P78]

boobs are forbidden right?

[Bimmerteck]

how fucking dumb.

21 mass shootings since 1999 suggests that letting more people have guns is a fucking stupid law.

In australia, there has been 0 mass shootings since the gun laws were radically changed in 1996.

in sorry Americans, but your gun laws are fucking retarded, and all of this "right to bear arms" is a fucking farce.

This law won't let any "new" people carry guns, only allow people already fully licensed to carry everywhere else in the state, to also carry onto campuses.

I often assist my brother in-law in training local Police departments in assault weapon tactics for active shooter situations. . . but when I get paged to go into work at the hospital at 3am I have to remember to leave my .38 revolver in a lock box in the car b/c there's some imaginary line around the college campus where legislators decided I'm all of a sudden no longer responsible enough to carry the same back-up pistol that's been strapped to my family members' ankles since the 1950s.

[And2TheRepublic]

It amazes me how some are more than willing to forfeit their constitutional rights and those of others. More guns does not mean more crime. Quite the contrary here in the USA. I suggest some of you read some case law and national and local statistics on the matter.

You may not agree with the 2nd Amendment, but its still there in plain english. Every Amendment in the Bill of Rights addresses individual rights.

Has crime stopped in the UK or Australia with a national gun ban? Criminals, as we have seen in every society will carry illegal guns regardless of the law.

"Any society willing to give up a little bit of their freedom for a little bit of security, deserves neither, and will lose both" - Benjamin Franklin

[Kielan]

Just because people are willing to forfeit that right, and don't agree with the 2nd Amendment, doesn't mean they are wrong... They don't agree with it, and they may not agree with the new law proposal. I know quite a few people who feel strongly against the 2nd Amendment and several that love it. Regardless, don't get mad at those people who don't like it. They are merely voicing their view on the matter, which if I am not mistaken is what this thread is all about.

[And2TheRepublic]

I am certainly not upset with or against people voicing their opinions. i clearly said that even though you may not agree, the 2nd Amendment is still there. My only concern is people using false logic to make a point by saying more guns translates to more crime. That is proven wrong.

Many people believe in the 1st Amendment and some don't. I am merely debating my own opinions and thoughts on the matter. Nowhere in my previous post do i suggest people shouldnt voice their opinions. I am just countering their arguement with my own. So relax.

[Anonymoose]

My view... Just because it is a right it doesn't mean it is a need. "it's your right to bear arms so do it or someone will shoot you!" "well shit I better load up then". It's a whole circle of fear that escalates and makes an issue out of basically nothing. If a criminal is going to use a weapon, he'll use whether you have a gun or not...are you really going to have time if a mugger came at you with his gun already pulled, you a quickshooter? The crime problem lies with the authorities, it is not solved letting people believe they NEED guns to be safe. I will LOL if I hear someone gets shot trying to ask a stranger an innocent question on the street, which is where this will eventually lead.

[Kielan]

I misread, my mistake. I don't think many people realize that, this isn't allowing more people to carry, its just allowing them to carry in more places. I don't see a problem with it, but that said, I think that the University should be able to make this decision themselves. But I don't have a problem with it.

[Rally]

Great idea, I don't think its so much a right as it is an obligation to carry a firearm, it is the sole reason the great United States of America will never be invaded on our soil, or fall to the power of another country, we are an armed society.

I'm not sure a few american citizens toting handguns will have any effect over an actual army invasion if things were ever to reach that point If they're going to be deterred by anything, it'd be the strength of our armed forces, not the fact that we let some of our citizens have a few guns.

"Any society willing to give up a little bit of their freedom for a little bit of security, deserves neither, and will lose both" - Benjamin Franklin

I've never understood the use of this quote in modern day society. Our entire law system is based on the concept of giving up or losing freedoms in exchange for security or safety. For example, I'm not allowed to drive 90mph on the highway because the government has decided it would be better for the safety of others to limit this freedom.

We have given up freedoms for security since the beginning and it hasn't caused any problems or resulted in "a loss of both". It's something that needs to be done because human nature is heavily flawed. A 100% free society would be terrifying.

[Anonymoose]

Land of the Free still gets used aswell

[And2TheRepublic]

@anonymoose: i very much believe that open carry is a deterrent to crime. Here in Virginia we can open carry a handgun, meaning i can wear one holstered on my hip. Ive seen with my own eyes when unsavory characters see my weapon and do a 180. Were they criminals? Maybe or maybe not. They might thnk im a cop and feel its better to just stay away. Who knows the real truth. I do know one or two things - Ive never known of a criminal to open carry a weapon and if you really have nothing to fear, then you shouldnt need to avoid someone who is carrying a weapon legally.

I dont think just anyone should be able to carry weapons. Thats why we have common sense laws that say felons, convictions of aggrivated assaults, and people that are mentally ill cannot, etc. Owning and carrying a gun isnt a requirement and never should be.

There is a quote that says "an armed society is a polite society". This is very true. When i open carry my entire attitute and demeanor is different. I am much more polite and conscience of those around me that may be uncomfortable near a gun.

@kielan: i agree with you that a university should be able to make its own policy, but only if that school is a private or national institution. I believe that the State is sovereign and should be preemptive with its laws.

There are some schools that allow the carrying of handguns and do so with little or no incident.