TexasCHLforum.com

Guys,

I've heard a couple of radio shows recently where the opinion by the listeners and even the host is often that campus carry carry shouldn't be allowed because a handgun is no match for an AK47, thousands of guns would make for chaos, and another shooting is HIGHLY unlikely.

The biggest point that anti's miss is that the CHL movement is about personal protection, not public protection. I carry at at my church and if a person with a fully automatic weapon comes in, I'm not going to take him on face to face, but if I get a clear shot when he's shooting at another group, I'll take it, or another may get a clear shot when he's focusing on me. And if the gunman is circling around "playing with his food" (like in Columbine) while the scared victims are huddled under tables; then might be a good time to take out the threat.

And about the guns everywhere, I don't think that the majority of students will go through the trouble of getting their CHL and those that do will likely behave as most of us would and that would be escape if possible, but take out the threat if plausible and necessary without collateral fatalities.

Do I believe that I'll ever see a campus shooting? No, but my biggest concern when it comes to "gun free zones" is getting from my car and to my car; so for me it's more about campus muggings and sexual assault (those are common). It's the same with public schools, federal buildings, courthouses, and bars; fine take my gun at the door, but don't leave me defenseless when I exposed going to and from my car.

Embalmo

Embalmo wrote:And about the guns everywhere, I don't think that the majority of students will go through the trouble of getting their CHL and those that do will likely behave as most of us would and that would be escape if possible, but take out the threat if plausible and necessary without collateral fatalities.

Campus carry will probably be as common as open carry if they both pass, but it should be the individual choice. The second amendment says "shall not be infringed" not "shall be restricted by prejudice and ignorance."

Ameer wrote:Campus carry will probably be as common as open carry if they both pass, but it should be the individual choice. The second amendment says "shall not be infringed" not "shall be restricted by prejudice and ignorance."

As common as open carry? Are you referring to states that allow open carry. Is it so common that most folks open carry where it's allowed? Now you've got me curious. If passed, campus carry may be popular in College Station, but I'm guessing not Austin.

Embalmo

Embalmo wrote:

Ameer wrote:Campus carry will probably be as common as open carry if they both pass, but it should be the individual choice. The second amendment says "shall not be infringed" not "shall be restricted by prejudice and ignorance."

As common as open carry? Are you referring to states that allow open carry. Is it so common that most folks open carry where it's allowed? Now you've got me curious. If passed, campus carry may be popular in College Station, but I'm guessing not Austin.

Embalmo

Austin is not Texas. Austin is more like California in its attitudes. I don't think the peacenicks at UT will ever allow CHL on campus.

PRO wrote:

Embalmo wrote:

Ameer wrote:Campus carry will probably be as common as open carry if they both pass, but it should be the individual choice. The second amendment says "shall not be infringed" not "shall be restricted by prejudice and ignorance."

As common as open carry? Are you referring to states that allow open carry. Is it so common that most folks open carry where it's allowed? Now you've got me curious. If passed, campus carry may be popular in College Station, but I'm guessing not Austin.

Embalmo

Austin is not Texas. Austin is more like California in its attitudes. I don't think the peacenicks at UT will ever allow CHL on campus.

I could be wrong, but I think campus carry legislation is about requiring colleges to allow carry, not give them the option. I believe that if colleges could post 30.06, even the conservative leaning schools would; maybe a handful of uber-expensive private universities wouldn't. I should research, but I've got homework.

Embalmo

I do hope it will come to legislation but option could also be as likely of an outcome as would no change at all.

In today's Dallas Morning News opinion page there are two opinions offering a point/counterpoint on campus carry. The writer advocating no campus carry (a psych prof at UT) uses an argument that the CHL holders, having their Superman t-shirts under their school clothes, will start popping off indescriminately once the shooting begins in an effort to ride to the rescue. His point is that the risk of bystanders being shot,of other CHL "responders" being shot or LEOs being shot outweighs the benefits of allowing concealed carry.

He goes on about the average CHL holder, as opposed to LEOs, does not practice as much and is likely to choke at the time of need.

Both of these arguments completely miss the point of concealed carry. That point being carry for personal defense (or defense of loved ones) when there is no reasonable way out of a bad situation that has become VERY personal.

PRO wrote:

Embalmo wrote:

Ameer wrote:Campus carry will probably be as common as open carry if they both pass, but it should be the individual choice. The second amendment says "shall not be infringed" not "shall be restricted by prejudice and ignorance."

As common as open carry? Are you referring to states that allow open carry. Is it so common that most folks open carry where it's allowed? Now you've got me curious. If passed, campus carry may be popular in College Station, but I'm guessing not Austin.

Embalmo

Austin is not Texas. Austin is more like California in its attitudes. I don't think the peacenicks at UT will ever allow CHL on campus.

The most descriptive quote I've often heard about Austin (and I LOVES me some Austin) is that Austin is 60 square miles surrounded by reality.

The intellectually dishonest part about all this is that the student body would march, en mass, to the university president's office and demand his head on a platter if their first amendment rights were ever SLIGHTLY abridged. Yet completely revoking their second amendment rights is met with an appoving nod of the head.

Question: Is a state-sponsored and state-supported school able to pick and choose the inalienable rights that it allows its students, faculty and administrators to exercise?

SlickTX wrote:In today's Dallas Morning News opinion page there are two opinions offering a point/counterpoint on campus carry. The writer advocating no campus carry (a psych prof at UT) uses an argument that the CHL holders, having their Superman t-shirts under their school clothes, will start popping off indescriminately once the shooting begins in an effort to ride to the rescue. His point is that the risk of bystanders being shot,of other CHL "responders" being shot or LEOs being shot outweighs the benefits of allowing concealed carry.

He goes on about the average CHL holder, as opposed to LEOs, does not practice as much and is likely to choke at the time of need.

Both of these arguments completely miss the point of concealed carry. That point being carry for personal defense (or defense of loved ones) when there is no reasonable way out of a bad situation that has become VERY personal.

Amen!

Rule 1: If I'm dead, I can't help my family.
Rule 2: Get my family and self to cover, safety or away.
Rule 3: Unless a child is about to be harmed, it's not my fight.
Rule 4: Be smart enough to avoid all the above situations.

Ameer wrote:

Embalmo wrote:And about the guns everywhere, I don't think that the majority of students will go through the trouble of getting their CHL and those that do will likely behave as most of us would and that would be escape if possible, but take out the threat if plausible and necessary without collateral fatalities.

Campus carry will probably be as common as open carry if they both pass, but it should be the individual choice. The second amendment says "shall not be infringed" not "shall be restricted by prejudice and ignorance."

Sounds to me like Ameer is saying that, just like open carry in most states, campus carry will not be exercised. Fact is we'll never know if they follow the rules.

I agree about the protection to and from the car, I walk to the parking lots at night from my evening classes and it is dimly lit and nearby cars offer excellent cover for a criminal.

SlickTX wrote: Question: Is a state-sponsored and state-supported school able to pick and choose the inalienable rights that it allows its students, faculty and administrators to exercise?

Universities have been able to abridge the 1st Amendment by requiring that protestors or anybody that wants to be heard move to a specific area. There are pros and cons to this. Pros: Universities attract some weird people that really want to share their ideas of religion, politics, and just about everything else. It gets annoying really fast. Cons: I want to be able to speak freely anywhere I stand.

PRO wrote:
Rule 1: If I'm dead, I can't help my family.
Rule 2: Get my family and self to cover, safety or away.
Rule 3: Unless a child is about to be harmed, it's not my fight.
Rule 4: Be smart enough to avoid all the above situations.

I don't think we'll ever rid ourselves of the media's interpretation of WHY we get our CHL. We'll always be labeled as closet superheroes, vigilantes, and so on. Imagine if a CHL holder, having heard via text message of a shooter, starts to run back to his apartment. The shooter and CHL holder, by coincidence, cross paths and the CHL holder, fearing for his life, ends that of the shooter. After action review will discover that this CHL holder knew about the terrorist and will be labeled as a batman figure, taking justice into his own hands.

Embalmo wrote:

Ameer wrote:Campus carry will probably be as common as open carry if they both pass, but it should be the individual choice. The second amendment says "shall not be infringed" not "shall be restricted by prejudice and ignorance."

As common as open carry? Are you referring to states that allow open carry. Is it so common that most folks open carry where it's allowed? Now you've got me curious. If passed, campus carry may be popular in College Station, but I'm guessing not Austin.

Embalmo

There may not be many people that do either if it is legal, but that's not a good reason to keep them illegal.

hirundo82 wrote:

Embalmo wrote:

Ameer wrote:Campus carry will probably be as common as open carry if they both pass, but it should be the individual choice. The second amendment says "shall not be infringed" not "shall be restricted by prejudice and ignorance."

As common as open carry? Are you referring to states that allow open carry. Is it so common that most folks open carry where it's allowed? Now you've got me curious. If passed, campus carry may be popular in College Station, but I'm guessing not Austin.

Embalmo

There may not be many people that do either if it is legal, but that's not a good reason to keep them illegal.

I would think you would have a difficult time finding anyone who believes that campus carry should be illegal on this forum.

karl wrote:

SlickTX wrote: Question: Is a state-sponsored and state-supported school able to pick and choose the inalienable rights that it allows its students, faculty and administrators to exercise?

Universities have been able to abridge the 1st Amendment by requiring that protestors or anybody that wants to be heard move to a specific area. There are pros and cons to this. Pros: Universities attract some weird people that really want to share their ideas of religion, politics, and just about everything else. It gets annoying really fast. Cons: I want to be able to speak freely anywhere I stand.

PRO wrote:
Rule 1: If I'm dead, I can't help my family.
Rule 2: Get my family and self to cover, safety or away.
Rule 3: Unless a child is about to be harmed, it's not my fight.
Rule 4: Be smart enough to avoid all the above situations.

I don't think we'll ever rid ourselves of the media's interpretation of WHY we get our CHL. We'll always be labeled as closet superheroes, vigilantes, and so on. Imagine if a CHL holder, having heard via text message of a shooter, starts to run back to his apartment. The shooter and CHL holder, by coincidence, cross paths and the CHL holder, fearing for his life, ends that of the shooter. After action review will discover that this CHL holder knew about the terrorist and will be labeled as a batman figure, taking justice into his own hands.

If while trying to observe rule #2, I somehow failed at rule #4 and now I’m faced with rule #1, They can label me anyway they want. I saved my life and perhaps others. I wasn’t going out of my way to get to the shooter.