I would like all of your opinions on this post

[shaggydog]

Russell:

I have followed this thread for a while and am pleased that you have taken up the "cause" at SHSU. Unfortunately you are going to have very little luck in making a rational point with this individual. The philosophy of all conquering peace and love is neither new nor anymore valid than it was in the '60s. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for peace and love however, I am also for the preservation of my defination of "good" which occasionally may require something other than either peace or love to maintain. People of this ilk are sheeple in the first degree and are prime targets for the wolves. It is an unfortunate fact that the precipitating factor in this individuals change of mindset will probably be an attack by one of those wolves rather than a debate concerning Constitutional rights. I hope that he survives the attack.

- Having the ability to carry my firearm concealed is a right granted to me by the Texas State Legislature.

My only critique of your response is that the right to arm yourself is given you by the Constitution of the United States rather than the State Legislature.

Good Luck

shaggy

[Venus Pax]

I'm glad you took up this cause. You may not have convinced that person, but several people that have read that post now have a different viewpoint.

[KBCraig]

- Having the ability to carry my firearm concealed is a right granted to me by the Texas State Legislature.

My only critique of your response is that the right to arm yourself is given you by the Constitution of the United States rather than the State Legislature.

Neither. Rights come from God. Or for those who don't believe in Creation, they come just by virtue of being born.

The right to self defense, and to bear tools for that purpose, is a basic human right inherent in all human beings, regardless of where they have been born. All governments violate that right to some degree; some quite severely, others not so much.

The U.S. Constitution and the Texas Legislature don't grant us any rights. They just recognize some of them.

Kevin

[longtooth]

I think you have done an excellent job.
I have found that the folks who oppose carry & the 2A have to first be convinced of the practical need. You have addressed this very well.

All the legal theology comes after the practical needs are recognized.

[seamusTX]

Russell, you will never convince this person that you are right or get him to admit that you have won the argument.

His basic premise is incorrect. Some people turn out to be psychopaths or sociopaths no matter how they are treated. Cho had a normal family, siblings who turned out normal, and received psychological care. There are many examples of people from normal backgrounds who have turned into murderous criminals.

Even if he were correct, and being loved and cared for prevented people from being criminals, there is no way to deal with the millions of people who have not grown in in that kind of background, whose parents are abusive, neglectful, or criminals in their own right.

- Jim

[Liberty]

I have just a couple of random thoughts about the issue.
Although the mass shootings such as that in VT bring to light a reason why we should be allowed and encouraged possession of concealed weapons on campus. Your adversary has a point, these shootings are rare. Yet college campuses are dangerous places, rapes and thuggery pretty common place. We often don't hear much about them because they are often hushed up by the administrations. College students need protection not so much for the mass murders, but for the everyday rapes and murders that don't get the national attention.
College students also must live and work in the community they often work late hours and should be allowed the protection other citizens are allowed. They should not be penalized just because they have to enter campuses and buildings.

Maybe these mass killing can sometimes be prevented but like the flue there is no absolute cure for homicidal mania other than the demise of the criminal.

[Venus Pax]

Yet college campuses are dangerous places, rapes and thuggery pretty common place. We often don't hear much about them because they are often hushed up by the administrations. College students need protection not so much for the mass murders, but for the everyday rapes and murders that don't get the national attention.
College students also must live and work in the community they often work late hours and should be allowed the protection other citizens are allowed. They should not be penalized just because they have to enter campuses and buildings.

I couldn't agree more. When I was going to college, that was something that was always in the back of my mind. I was very watchful, but some things are just unavoidable.
I always found it rather barbaric that we couldn't carry our weapons to protect ourselves from violent encounters.

[Mark G26]

I think you have done an excellent job.
I have found that the folks who oppose carry & the 2A have to first be convinced of the practical need. You have addressed this very well.

All the legal theology comes after the practical needs are recognized.

[srothstein]

I think you have done a very good job, especially when you agreed to disagree. You did recognize that you were not going to change his mind, and reposting a summary of your position was a great way for others who are not as set.

But there are also two other points you could consider making for a future argument like his. One point was to ask him if he does anything to prepare for natural disaster, such as a fire extinguisher. The firearm is just a preventative tool, as is the extinguisher. Both can be misused (and the extinguishers are misused more often in college dorms IMO).

The other was to ask how you can identify those who are hurting to reach out to them. What do you do if they are not recognized or reject your help? Some people make it easy to identify them and offer help. Cho did, but what about the others who do not make it obvious? Some people will snap without giving the public warning signs that Cho did.

Also, some people refuse to be helped and ignore offers. Cho did. He was seen by psychologists and did not continue to see them. Society did try to get him the help he needed and he refused it. What do you do then?

As a final point that I had forgotten, you might also correct them that Cho did NOT buy the gun legally. He was a forbidden person from his court finding of mental illness. The system did not catch it, but he was not legal. This is used to help bolster your argument (that you did make) that you cannot stop someone from finding the means to hurt us if they really want to.

[shootthesheet]

I think the purpose of the thread and conversation was met. You cannot convince those who refuse to embrace reality to do so. They cannot without excepting they are mortal and that is the center of their fear and motivation of their actions. I look at these conversations with these types as seeds for them but more importantly for those that may follow the conversation and think for themselves to find the truth. It may take time but I am sure your reason will help someone. Maybe not who you are conversing with but, someone eventually. Standing up for our beliefs and declaring fact is always the correct thing to do. Just because the group your are speaking to does not except it doesn't mean you are not correct or that someone won't be changed eventually. Good job.

[Will938]

I'd tell him that yes, infact the only way this problem will come to an end is through fixing the social problem that made the person think it was ok to kill people. But facts are that the person is still there to kill, and no amount of political posturing will bring your life back. YOU are responsible for your safety, if that moment does come the VICTIMS will be the first to the scene of the crime, not police.

[kw5kw]

I would use the following illustrations as well...

1) I don't get up in the mornings planning to have a crash in my vehicle, but I purchase and maintain car insurance just in case.

2) I don't plan on my house burning down before I get home this evening, but just in case that it does I maintain home owner's insurance...

3) ... and in the same line of thought, I don't plan on a tornado blowing my house down either, but I do carry the same home owner's insurance.

4) I didn't plan on having a heart attack at the age of 49, but I did and I was very, Very glad I had some health insurance that covered my expenses.

5) In the same sense as the above examples, I carry a weapon, duly licensed by the Sovereign State of Texas (Which in and of itself proves that I'm no criminal or I would not have received permission to do so from the State.), just in case that someone tries to rape, rob or murder either my wife or myself, either in my home, in my car or any other place that I'm legally entitled to be.