TexasCHLforum.com

Draft of John Wood's Testimony next Wednesday?

US: Guns should be banned from campus
John Woods*
13 March 2011
Issue: 162
http://www.universityworldnews.com/arti ... mode=print" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In Texas Senator Jeff Wentworth and Representative Joe Driver, thousands of miles away from my alma mater, brashly claimed they had an answer to my every question. Arm students and faculty, they said, in order to "prevent another Virginia Tech".

At that time I believed, naively, that if I shared the stories of the survivors with them, they'd simply withdraw their proposal and explore any number of the litany of ideas I imported from Virginia for preventing school shootings. I believed, naively, that they would honour our dead, our maimed, and our survivors.

from http://www.universityworldnews.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; "THIS WEEK'S HIGHLIGHTS" at http://www.universityworldnews.com/arti ... 2090932336" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Edited to add: (I like how he spells "honour" like they do in the U.K. where guns are banned, yet criminals still have guns)

The role of FORESEEABILITY IN NEGLIGENCE CASES

Families of V.T. victims were paid for V.T. failing to protect students on Monday April 16, 2007

2002 Federal Report:

"PREVENTING SCHOOL SHOOTINGS"

Page 14:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/jr000248c.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

School Staff (and students) Are Often First
Responders

Most shooting incidents were
not resolved by law enforcement
intervention.

More than half of the
attacks ended before law enforcement
responded to the scene—
despite law enforcement’s often
prompt response.

In these cases,
faculty or fellow students stopped
the attacker, or the attacker either
stopped shooting on his own or
committed suicide.Many of the
incidents lasted 20 minutes or less.

This report was done in 2002, it was ignored and ...

On FRIDAY THE 13th April 2007
everyone FELT safe

On Monday the 16th April 2007
Everyone realized they were NOT safe
=======================================

Let's not ignore that report.
It was true in 2002, proven in 2007, and still true today.
Money can never replace family members.
Allow the "first responders" "equal protection" the right to be armed, please.

Facebook anti-

Testify: No Handguns on Campus! (March 16th)
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=147321258663894" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=206472899379460" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Would it be in bad form to mail John Woods a map with the route from Austin to Chicago or New York highlighted?

Ooh, or Mexico. I hear they have nothing to worry about in Mexican colleges because they know none of the students are legally carrying.

hirundo82 wrote:

Would it be in bad form to mail John Woods a map with the route from Austin to Chicago or New York highlighted?

Ooh, or Mexico. I hear they have nothing to worry about in Mexican colleges because they know none of the students are legally carrying.

He is using spelling conventions from the U.K., I figured he's practicing before moving already. Perhaps TWO maps 1) a World map with a coloured line between here and England? And, 2) this map of London? http://www.murdermap.co.uk/murder-map.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thinkin of the U.K.

Funny U.K. poll on this topic
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthr ... 060&page=4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Driver was shocked when he learned that police active-shooter response involves shooting any person holding a gun, without verbal warnings - an offensive strategy which enables police to enter situations much more quickly.

Are you kidding me?!! I'm shocked!!! How can this be legal? Does anyone else know anything about this? Please tell me Mr. Woods is (again) off his rocker... The Appalachian School of Law shooting immediately comes to mind (two off-duty LEOs who were students got their personal guns from their cars after hearing shots fired and subdued the shooter) - are campus police really planning and training to shoot ANYONE (good guy, bad guy, off-duty LEO, CHL holder, they're all the same right? ) in an active-shooter situation?

The bill sponsors are apparently unaware of the binge drinking that goes on, or that a majority of crimes on many campus are committed by seniors - exactly the people who would be carrying guns if the legislation passes

I'd love to see the basis for his claim that a majority of campus crimes are committed by seniors. First of all, it doesn't appear that the Cleary Act (campus crime reporting law) requires universities to track or report the classification of students that commit crimes, so I doubt there is anything publicly available that would back up this claim. The reports for the two campuses I recently read (UNT and UH) do not indicate whether crimes are committed by freshmen, sophomores, etc, or even whether the crimes are committed by students or off-campus individuals. My personal opinion, based on affiliations (student and/or employee) with numerous Texas colleges and universities over the last 10 years, is that seniors do NOT cause the majority of crimes on campus - my impression is that freshman are responsible for the majority of crimes committed by students (usually things like drug violations and liquor law violations); my experience has been that most of the more serious crimes on campus (robberies, burglaries, kidnappings, etc) are actually committed by people unaffiliated with the campus - i.e., people who come onto campus to prey on the students. I won't be able to make it to the hearings this week, but if anyone goes and hears John make this claim about seniors and campus crime, I'd suggest you challenge him on it.

NorthTexas wrote:I'd love to see the basis for his claim that a majority of campus crimes are committed by seniors. First of all, it doesn't appear that the Cleary Act (campus crime reporting law) requires universities to track or report the classification of students that commit crimes, so I doubt there is anything publicly available that would back up this claim. The reports for the two campuses I recently read (UNT and UH) do not indicate whether crimes are committed by freshmen, sophomores, etc, or even whether the crimes are committed by students or off-campus individuals. My personal opinion, based on affiliations (student and/or employee) with numerous Texas colleges and universities over the last 10 years, is that seniors do NOT cause the majority of crimes on campus - my impression is that freshman are responsible for the majority of crimes committed by students (usually things like drug violations and liquor law violations); my experience has been that most of the more serious crimes on campus (robberies, burglaries, kidnappings, etc) are actually committed by people unaffiliated with the campus - i.e., people who come onto campus to prey on the students. I won't be able to make it to the hearings this week, but if anyone goes and hears John make this claim about seniors and campus crime, I'd suggest you challenge him on it.

That's been my experience in 15 years at UTD. Most of the crimes are committed by persons unaffiliated with the university (certainly not all) who come on the campus to prey on innocent (unarmed) victims.

I never lived on campus, and never saw anyone drunk in the Library or during class ... hungover maybe but ...
Another point, if alcohol is banned on campus, and it finds its way there illegally ... you think guns could find their way there illegally?

NorthTexas wrote:

Driver was shocked when he learned that police active-shooter response involves shooting any person holding a gun, without verbal warnings - an offensive strategy which enables police to enter situations much more quickly.

Are you kidding me?!! I'm shocked!!! How can this be legal? Does anyone else know anything about this? Please tell me Mr. Woods is (again) off his rocker... The Appalachian School of Law shooting immediately comes to mind (two off-duty LEOs who were students got their personal guns from their cars after hearing shots fired and subdued the shooter) - are campus police really planning and training to shoot ANYONE (good guy, bad guy, off-duty LEO, CHL holder, they're all the same right? ) in an active-shooter situation?

I don't know if the campus police are trained this way or not. We did have a very interesting debate in one of my classes last semester on this. On of the students is active duty Air Force Security Police. He mentioned that their new policy for response to an active shooter situation was to shoot the suspect on sight, without any orders to surrender, even if he had reholstered and was leaving. He did say it was the shooting suspect, but I could see how a CHL that was shooting could be confused that way. Of course, a lot of it would depend on what kind of information the responding officers had.

The good side was that all of the civilian cops in the room had the same answer. No way, the Fourth Amendment flat out prohibits that kind of use of force. The closest I have seen to this in training is the argument that it was legally justified to shoot the suspect when he was leaving IF he did not respond to your commands. I am not sure I agree with this, but there was a strong argument that he was still a threat to others and was just heading to a different area to continue the shooting. You could not know if this was true or not, so the shooting would be justified.

I know of no agency that trains its officers to just shoot anyone they see with a gun. I have heard some campus chiefs make that claim (and I think one has been posted on this board), so that might be the basis for the claim in the article.