TexasCHLforum.com

Soooooooooo it cost taxpayers and lives, and families, ...... not the school.

idrathernot wrote:Apparently VT was sued by members of the victims family. There was a civil suit against the University President which I believe was dismissed based off of Sovereign Immunity, could't find much about it. However, the University did pay $11 million to the families of the victims via a settlement to "avoid a court battle over whether anyone besides the gunman was to blame".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24050712/ns ... nd_courts/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

state settlement, not the college


That link you gave says ...
ROANOKE, Va. — Most families of victims of the Virginia Tech shootings have agreed to an $11 million state settlement to compensate families who lost loved ones, pay survivors' medical costs and avoid a court battle over whether anyone besides the gunman was to blame.

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine said Thursday a "substantial majority" of families of victims of the Virginia Tech shootings agreed to the settlement.

So, that looks like a class action against the State.

Wonder why the State paid?.... for allowing a State U to infringe on a right to self-protect... for allowing a State U to fail to provide security ? allowing a State U to hide the mental health records a year or two?
Dunno.. probably won't ... it's quieter to settle out of court.

And
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/05/us/06 ... .html?_r=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Kenneth R. Feinberg, the Washington lawyer who directed the federal program to compensate relatives of victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, will oversee the distribution of the $7 million that has been donated to Virginia Tech
In this case, he will handle $7 million in private money

Victims may also be eligible for money through a state compensation fund for victims of violent crime, university officials said. Mr. Feinberg said that such state funds typically pay between $2,500 and $5,000.

I retract my former statement that it was nice of VT to give $ to the families ... unless they did. I don't see that it cost them a dime yet.

lack of ROTC programs in high schools causes alarm when people see rifles; they are no longer "conditioned" that guns aren't bad.

yeah

Over at A&M some guy said "Thank goodness no CHL's were there when the guy had the fake gun"

I pointed out most CHLs would know
1) nothing illegal about carrying a rifle around on campus
2) A&M has a shooting club
3) CHLs, (and most people) know A&M has a corps of cadets
I wanted to say ... "I understand why YOU are so scared, people are afraid of unknowns, and you show your ignorance well ...but to me, it would be as exciting as watching him carry a tuba or saxophone ... they have a band too right?"

"So what are you afraid I'd do?
Draw? intentional failure to conceal is a crime for which would cost much in legal fees.
Waive it around? Disorderly conduct is a crime for which I could lose a license and pay much in legal fees.

I'd no more draw on someone carrying a rifle who wasn't a threat than someone carrying a tuba.


Had to chuckle at Bat Masterson this morning ... riding horse with another guy, hears a rifle shot
"What are you going to do Bat?
Bat: "Nothing, he wasn't aiming at US."
(possibly a hunter)

No threat ... no problem.

Well, that was nice of them to pay a little to the families of the people they forbade the right to protect themselves, even though they owed no legal obligation to do so if case dismissed due to sovereign immunity.

I believe the "liability" excuse is an excuse, a facade.

Seriously, how much do they pay for other crimes on campus? stolen laptops, rapes, burglaries, robberies?
Nothing?

idrathernot wrote:Most of the article authors seem to be Canadian. Here I was thinking that your average American was a little slow.....

Colleges don't want to allow students the right to defend themselves on campus because of the same reasons why large corporations don't want the same from their employees. L-I--A-B-I-L-I-T-Y. The way that our legal system has been abused in this regard is such a tragedy, but it you look at the issue from a purely defensive legal stance it's all pretty congruous.

I suppose they "could" get sued, but did Virginia Tech?

What Liability do they assume for cars broken into?
"guns falling into the wrong hands because they must be stored in cars on campus"
None? ....

I think they may enjoy a bit of "sovereign immunity" possibly, though I never looked into it.

They should have no more "liability" than the Capitol building does.

I heard someone say once:
"Abortions don't affect me; I've already been born."
I understand and respect their right to hold that, or any other position.

However, guns falling into the wrong hands because they must be stored in cars on campus MIGHT affect you some day if you run into one ...
especially since criminals are aware that campus parking lots are more likely to have a better crop due to that fact, than WalMart parking lots where CHLs aren't forced to leave their crop of guns out in unattended fields for "easy pickings"

I'll say no more, I was just posting a spot where, if one so desires, they may vote..

Another poll 1 day ago -
http://www.helium.com/debates/66199-sho ... ide?page=7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Should colleges ban firearms?
Of COURSE colleges should ban firearms.

There is absolutely no reason that students on a college campus should carry firearms of any kind. A college is a place of learning, not violence

Results so far:
Yes
79% 810 votes Total: 1028 votes
No
21% 218 votes
------------
You voted
on 12/24/10