House committee approves concealed carry on campus

Smokey

Sat Nov 7 2009 18:05

Actually, as a firefighter with the Forest Service, we commonly and frequently use fires to stop fires.... next time do your research Vaggelis. To that end, curling up in a ball and allowing armed lunatics to continue killing students and faculty until law enforcement finally arrives makes no sense. Let the students and staff that are legally permitted to carry firearms have them on campus and lets stop these events inside the first minute.... not several body bags later.

Chuck_bckr@yahoo.com

Thu Apr 23 2009 15:10

well let us just throw out the baby and the bath water too, lets give everyone 18 or older (Physically) the write to buy beer in mass quantaties and smoke (WHATEVER) blows there fun meter to or beyond pegged out. And lets have the financing of reloads done by the campus they choose to Attend. This is a very shallow cover-up of the LEFT to FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE to get the 2nd Amendment drop from our rights as CITIZENS of this Country. If enough people are Killed the out cry for abolishment will not cease until that is DONE. Ooh, by the Way where is the opposition and the demonstrations that should follow such a Genetic malformed Idea, and Why let the OUT OF TOUCH lunes in GOV. try such a deed as this. Students Rise up go to Wal Mart and but a squirt gun and shoot until they have no choice to stop and protect u Better.

Mike

Thu Apr 23 2009 12:20

There seems to be one basic fact that you learned people have overlooked in this little debate. All of you have chanted the mantra of your liberal or conservative positions but fail to understand the only two people at the scene of a crime is the criminal and the victim. The police get there after the fact and investigate with the hope of bringing the criminal to justice. However, there is very little justice in the world today, there is only the law; which is, at times, a piss poor substitute. The issue is not about guns; it is about an individual's right to self defense. A cop is too heavy to carry around, and mace and pepper spray are ineffective against a psycho armed with a firearm.

Mikee

Sun Apr 19 2009 12:10

I am 49 years old and have a son at a Texas university. When I travel to visit him, I carry a handgun in my automobile in case of need for self defense. I have a Texas Concealed Handgun License. When I get to campus, I have to leave this gun locked in my car, vulnerable to theft (and yes, there are auto break-ins on Texas university campuses). I feel the gun I carry, legally, securely, safely, with no intent whatsoever to harm any innocent person, would be better kept invisibly on my person under my jacket when I go visiting. This law would make that legal.

This law affects only adults, over 21, who already have Concealed Handgun Licenses from Texas Department of Public Safety. Our fingerprints are filed with the state, we have taken a concealed handgun course taught by state certified instructors and passed both a written and practical (i.e., shooting at targets) tests. We are, as a group, more law abiding than most citizens of the state, taken as a whole, statistically speaking.

Should I want to carry concealed on campus, law or no law, likely nobody would ever know. I don't do so illegally, because I am a law-abiding person, as are essentially all those who go to the trouble, time, and expense to obtain a CHL. When law-abiding errors see a law that makes no sense, does nothing to improve public safety and makes illegal what has no reason to be illegal, we apply to the legislature to fix it. That is what is going on here. 77 House members agree with us, upon reflection, and have cosponsored this bill. When the bill passes, there will be cries of "Dodge City" and "Blood in the Streets" as there is every time a CHL bill has passed. However, there will be neither, as there has not been, every time a CHL bill has passed. When the same people make the same predictions again and again in similar circumstances, and are wrong every time, why does anyone listen to them.

matt krush

Sun Apr 12 2009 11:44

Listening to anti gunners against gun owners....is like listening to the intolerance of heterosexuals being near homosexuals back in the 1980's and '09's....FEAR, IGNORANCE,and EMOTIONS are all that affects their judgment.
Until it is an anti-gunners daughter of wife that is brutally beaten, raped, or murdered...they need to quiet down. Its easy to pick the defenseless side of an argument when clearly it is not personal.
VIOLENCE and CRIME happen with out firearms being involved more often than not. To not value your or your family's life is unfathomable.
To believe police are "johnny on the spot" crime preventors and have some inherent ability that a civilian could never possess is naive at best.
Why have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers in your house? After all you have a local fire dept. Isn't that what they are for? to prevent fires and save you and your valuable material possessions? Because appearantly you do not value your life enough to protect it yourself.
Evil, genocide, and violence existed long before firearms...i can concede firearms can make the job easier, but banning them does not ban crime/violent acts.
Tim McVeigh used not one firearm. 9/11...not one firearm used there. The subway in Japan, train in Spain...terrorists do not use firearms....99% of all rapes and abductions have no firearms involved.

If more firearms cause more death and destruction...then mine are defective or i do not have that magic number of too many.

Concerned Undergraduate

Fri Apr 10 2009 12:14

Only in Texas

Zifnab

Fri Apr 10 2009 11:06

"-- Roger Bower - They carry without problems off campus... What makes it problematic in class ? --"

In part, because it strikes so many people as counter-intuitive. Imagine if students were being stabbed on campus, and the Texas Legislature announced we should encourage more students to hide hunting knives under their jackets. Sure, it might not increase the problem, but I don't see it as much of a solution either. The current solution sounds like the legislature just tossed us into the Wild West. Now, if I want to feel safe, I've got to go spend five hours a week at the shooting range, or hope and pray the gun-slinger who comes to my rescue isn't a sloppy shot.

The most offensive part of the legislation is the legislative laziness of it all. When New York went through a crime wave in the 90s, the mayors responded with more cops. When Houston went through a similar crime wave, the mayors responded with more cops. Both cities have seen crime decrease as cops increased and crime increases when cop presence was scaled back.

The current legislative solution sounds a lot like, "We're too cheap to get more cops. So just be your own cops. Figure this out for yourself. It's not really our problem." It's lazy. It's unproven to be effective. It's cheap. And, ultimately, it's insulting. The legislature isn't offering a solution. It isn't even really asking if there is a problem - does half a dozen campus shooting a year across the entire US justify upsetting the legal status quo? Is anything even broken? It's just embracing party rhetoric. I'm a little surprised the bill didn't include tax cuts - that being the other GOP fix-all.

Jon

Fri Apr 10 2009 10:51

I continue to be amazed at how, when confronted with gun violence, a certain segment of the population demands more guns as the panacea for less violence. Allowing people to take guns on campus does what, exactly? Allow some students with some guns to shoot back? Is this really the direction you want to take?

It's also somewhat illuminating that the initiative started in the Texas Legislature (you remember, the Texas Legislature - the brain trust that brought us deregulated tuition, sckitzophrenic standardized testing requirements, and billion dollar deficits) while the push back is starting in the student body itself.

Is this a case of older, wiser statesmen feeding the student body a much needed dose of 2nd Amendment medicine? Or is this asinine butt-covering fueled by NRA fundamentalists and lazy administrators who would rather tell students to fend for themselves than actually evaluate state campus security? Is this an actual proven remedy to campus crime or just political pandering to a handful of special interest groups?

As it seems all over except for the shouting, I guess Texas states schools will receive the honor of being the test tubes in our little gun violence experiment. Enjoy that, guys.

Margaret Leber

Fri Apr 10 2009 07:44

Karen, do you know any high schoolers who are licensed to carry? Why are they still in high school at that age?

I won't accuse you of "lunacy", but I will point out that your straw-man is on a slippery slope. :-)

Fro Abeman

Fri Apr 10 2009 00:16

Hey, Abe, and suppose the student sitting next to your sister is the madman and she's the first target? You sure you want to make it easier for him to have a gun?

Your name

Thu Apr 9 2009 20:02

“'Crime happens on campus, and I’m very passionate about people’s right to defend themselves,' said Daniel Crocker, the Texas director of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus."

this stupid bill is going to be the only cause of "crime" that will happen on campus

Your name

Thu Apr 9 2009 18:14

GOD BLESS AMERICA! =)

Geoffrey Geiger

Thu Apr 9 2009 18:02

Jedi Knight John Woods supports the concealed carry of lightsabers on campus?

Glock 23

Thu Apr 9 2009 17:52

John Woods is a complete and utter tool. Using his dead "girl friend" to further his political objectives is sick.

1911

Thu Apr 9 2009 16:38

So there are those that would sit by and be eaten when wolves are out. When the wolves come, a Shepherd only has his crook.

The suggestion is not to give out guns to everyone. But to allow people who have permits to carry their firearm on them. Instead of leaving them at home, in their car, or who knows where. Those of you that are so afraid of the gun toting people causing problems. Just doesn't happen that way. Those of us who carry, are among you, and you don't know it.

So to those of you who say guns are "bad," and those you carry them are crazy or "bigots." To the last one i'm like WTF? Anways, I ask. When a bad man who wants to hurt you is right in front of you, and the cops are on the other side of campus. What are you going to do? Those w/ a CHL and their firearm have a chance. Those that dont, will be remembered...

Paul T.

Thu Apr 9 2009 15:55

We can hold and share our wide variety of opinions and feelings on the matter of concealed carry on campus and gun control in general, but the fact of the matter is that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution acknowledges everyone's God-given right to self-defense. It's one thing to choose for yourself not to carry a weapon to defend yourself and/or others against attack, please don't criticize others' rights to do the same, especially considering you may need them to save your life.

When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.

It's better to have an not need, than to need and not have.

Geoffrey Geiger

Thu Apr 9 2009 15:14

Here's something to think about:

John Woods, who calls himself Mohawk-John Woods on Facebook, is a Jedi Knight according to his religious views. Does this mean that Mr. Woods wants students to carry concealed lightsabers on campus? This is far more dangerous I believe.

Roger Bower

Thu Apr 9 2009 15:00

Students (21 and up) that ALREADY carry on an everyday basis havent had problems off campus. Why would they suddenly have problems on campus ? They are in class. It's no different than the coffee shop, movie theatre, shopping mall etc...

There are already laws against carrying in bars and carrying while intoxicated... They are just asking for the right to defend themselves on campus where they attend class.

They carry without problems off campus... What makes it problematic in class ?

University Professor

GGGGGGGGGG

Thu Apr 9 2009 13:29

Why are gun owners always portrayed as bigoted? It's a constitutional right!

Vaggelis Meintanis

Thu Apr 9 2009 13:19

So, concealed carry supporters feel ok with hang-over, stressed-out, bigoted or just plain confused students carrying guns to campus, to evaluate and eliminate safety threats? Experienced police officers make mistakes and take lives and they arguably have more training and go through much more rigorous screening.

Or perhaps fear of an untimely death is going to stop people who are determined to commit suicide after their spree (as in all the previous cases) from coming to campus?

And what will happen if someone does open fire in the crowd and five people with limited perception of the situation, no means of communication and no uniform or other form of identification draw? How much collateral is acceptable? Does anyone think that the shooter is going to pose for a shot?

Having been in the university for quite some time, I have seen very, very few people that I would trust with a gun near me and of those, most would leave that to the trained, accountable, professional police officers. So would I.

@Stu Chisholm

While the Virginia Tech shooter was not a concealed handgun license holder you may remember that he had acquired his guns within the flexible limits of the law. Also, the argument about fire is at least childish. Controlling fire by burning everything in its path is not exactly the most productive fire control way and that's why it is only the last resort option for forest fires. Fire does not fight fire.