TexasCHLforum.com

Ba-Zing!

Drewthetexan wrote:Ba-Zing!

Thanks. I may have been a little too sarcastic, but wow were his comments misinformed and irrational!

I can't believe they used "facts" from the Brady Campaign.

The other thing I noticed, but didn't respond to because I can't back it up with evidence, just my own opinion: He states even if people had guns at Virginia Tech, they would have had to wait until he fired first. That's fine. So one person getting hurt or killed is worse then all of them getting killed? He should have been allowed to get all his shots off instead of one or two? I'm amazed by people sometimes.

People who write this kind of LTE are hopeless, but you have to refute them for the sake of readers who may be open-minded.

If everyone on campus had had a gun then you would have had a circular firing squad and more people dead.

To begin with, this is a straw man. "Everyone on campus" will never be armed. Most of them would not if they legally could. Only one to two percent of the adult population legally carries a weapon.

People defend themselves with firearms over a million times a year (mostly not shooting), and innocent people are rarely shot by defenders or the police.

The reason for this is simple enough. When the police arrive and yell, "Police! Drop your weapon!" the good guys do that. The bad guys usually don't.

The second amendment has been around for 200 years and America is no safer because of it. It's time to repeal the second amendment and excercise strict gun control.

This argument has to be hammered home every time: Nearly everyone who commits a crime with a firearm acquired or possesses the weapon illegally. They are underage, previously convicted felons, or illegal aliens. "Gun control" did nothing to stop them. It can't. It will never work.

- Jim

I think it was last year that a student at UT Arlington (Where I go) was arrested after pointing a gun at another student over a parking spot. The victim gave up the spot, but stuck around to get the license plate number and called it in. Campus police were on the guy like ants on candy. If they know, they are there.

To some extent it was nice to know they were Johnny-on-the-spot when they were needed. Word was they were all in full sprint to his location. But if the guy decided to go fruit-loops there wasn't anyone nearby to stop him until they arrived. Campus is no less vulnerable now than if it were opened up to CHLs, but convincing the hoplophobics is like trying to stuff an angry, greased-up cat into a toilet bowl.

Drewthetexan wrote:......... is like trying to stuff an angry, greased-up cat into a toilet bowl.

LOLROTF!!!!

That's a new one on me, and I love it! I'm going to memorize that and start using it. That made my day.

74novaman wrote:And the first naysayer crawls out of the woodwork to make comments!

The second amendment has been around for 200 years and America is no safer because of it. It's time to repeal the second amendment and excercise strict gun control.

If you really want to start a debate, you might post asking him what makes him think the 2A was intended to make him, or America in general, any safer from crime. It was intended to protect his rights to vote, protest, write in comments to newspapers, etc. And it has worked for over two hundred years since we still do have those rights.

Naysayer Number 2:

mmmm yes, but you are many more times likely to shoot yourself in the foot, or accidentally kill someone rather than use it in self defense. I, for one, would be incredibly uneasy with an armed campus. I've interacted with many of you on northgate.

And what's your reasoning for having them on campus? vtech? How often do college campuses get shot up?

Following that line of practicality, why don't we install anti-air missiles on our skyscrapers? We need that kind of self defense since 9/11. It also looks intimidating. But it's just as practical as bringing a loaded gun to your 8am bio class with 200+ people in the room.

My response to him:

I'm going to have to break your comment down sentence by sentence to respond to it.

mmmm yes, but you are many more times likely to shoot yourself in the foot, or accidentally kill someone rather than use it in self defense.

The number of "self defense usages" of a firearm per year is hard to track, because usages which do not result in an actual shooting often go unreported. The numbers range from 55,000 per year to upwards of 2.5 million. We'll be kind and use the lowest published number, 55,000. Let's compare that to the number of accidental gun deaths per year, according to the CDC. In 2003, 730 accidental gun deaths were reported. In the same year, 43,340 people were accidentally killed by motor vehicles. Not only am I not "more likely" to hurt myself with a gun then use it defensively, but you are far more likely to kill me with your car.

I, for one, would be incredibly uneasy with an armed campus.

I guess you're incredibly uneasy at Wal-Mart, your favorite restaurant, the grocery store, movie theatres and most other public places CHL holders currently carry daily.

I've interacted with many of you on northgate.

If you knew anything about gun laws, you would know 99% of businesses on Northgate derive 51% or more of their business from the sale of alcohol, which makes it illegal for CHL holders to carry there. I guess Northgate is one place you don't have to get that "uneasy" feeling you must have everywhere else you go. A very small proportion of CHL holders are part of the regular crowd at Northgate, I assure you. To paint that 1% of the college population which have a CHL with the broad and often overstated "drunken college kid" brush is lazy at best, intentionally dishonest at worst.

And what's your reasoning for having them on campus? vtech? How often do college campuses get shot up?

Did you even read the original article? "Gun free zones" are not magical safe places criminals fear to tread. From 2005-2007 on the campus of Texas A&M there were 21 "Forcible Sex Offenses", and 6 "Aggravated Assaults". Am I to understand your reasoning that because students are murdered in mass shootings only occasionally, that we shouldn't take steps to allow students and faculty on staff to protect themselves? How many more students have to die at the hands of deranged shooters (none of whom have ever had a CHL in any instance of mass murder) before you decide campus isn't as safe as it could be?

Your last comparison reaches into the realms of the absurd, comparing private citizens protecting themselves to putting missiles on skyscrapers.

Edit: Someone else had replied to his post before I did, and he had told them to calm down. Obviously just trying to insinuate another gun owner as an irrational, angry person. Tone is, after all, so hard to convey on the internet. Thus this response by me:

Before you tell me to "calm down" as well, I would like to reassure you I am not "angry", "deranged", or even "annoyed".

I have enjoyed the chance to educate you and correct your incorrect assumptions about the number of accidental shootings in relation to defensive uses of a handgun.

Civil discourse and logical debate based upon proven facts, not emotion or incorrect assumptions, is to me the highlight of a college experience.

good job !

usa1 wrote:good job !

Thanks! After correcting the mistaken assumptions of those 2, no one else has been brave enough to contradict me.

srothstein wrote:If you really want to start a debate, you might post asking him what makes him think the 2A was intended to make him, or America in general, any safer from crime. It was intended to protect his rights to vote, protest, write in comments to newspapers, etc. And it has worked for over two hundred years since we still do have those rights.

The 2A was intended to guarantee our essential liberty, not our temporary safety.

Good letter as corrected by several posters and good concealed carry primer for colleges and universities. The only point I see not factually correct is when stating that all must be 21 years of age. Please remember that there is an exception for military and veterans. They must be 18 years of age or older.

USMC-COL wrote:Good letter as corrected by several posters and good concealed carry primer for colleges and universities. The only point I see not factually correct is when stating that all must be 21 years of age. Please remember that there is an exception for military and veterans. They must be 18 years of age or older.

I did remember, but was up against that 200 word limit. If I ever write another, I'll try to fit that in. Thanks!

While it's true that someone who is in active military service or a veteran can get a Texas CHL before age 21, the number of college students who fit that description is vanishingly small. Fewer than 50 people age 18 to 20 have a CHL.

The important point is that the straw man argument about "drunken teenage frat boys" having weapons is ridiculous. The vast majority of CHL holders are over 21, most much older.

When you're trying to inform people about facts, it's too easy to overwhelm them with irrelevant details.

- Jim