Community | February 21, 2011 | 77 comments

Texas poised to pass bill allowing guns on campus

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110220/ap_on_re_us/us_guns_on_campus

Image
maasanova
Texas is preparing to give college students and professors the right to carry guns on campus, adding momentum to a national campaign to open this part of society to firearms.

More than half the members of the Texas House have signed on as co-authors of a measure directing universities to allow concealed handguns. The Senate passed a similar bill in 2009 and is expected to do so again. Republican Gov. Rick Perry, who sometimes packs a pistol when he jogs, has said he's in favor of the idea.

Texas has become a prime battleground for the issue because of its gun culture and its size, with 38 public universities and more than 500,000 students. It would become the second state, following Utah, to pass such a broad-based law. Colorado gives colleges the option and several have allowed handguns.
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics
  2. tags:
    News,  Politics,  Law,  Government,  4 more
  3.     
    |

77 comments // Texas poised to pass bill allowing guns on campus

  • Persecuted
    • 0
      Persecuted  

    • most college kids dont even think about carrying guns... just like the tobacco companies did in earlier years, the NRA is trying to persuade youngsters to carry guns who normally would not even consider it... it probably wont work... college kids these days really have no use for guns... only old people and drug dealers care so much about guns

    • 1 year ago
  • Persecuted
    • 0
      Persecuted  

    • for god's sake... could SOMEONE in our government focus on something that fucking matters?!?!?!?!?!?!

      this matters in the sense that it is incredibly wrong, poorly thought out, and a terrible example of what texas is.... but it doesnt decrease our budget... it doesnt create jobs.. it doesnt repair infrastructure... it doesnt put roofs over the heads of homeless... it doesnt feed the poor... it doesnt stop political greed...

      GET SOME FUCKING PRIORITIES, WASHINGTON!

    • 1 year ago
  • maasanova
    • 0
      maasanova  
    • Persecuted:

      I totally understand your sentiments about this not creating jobs and doing nothing for the country as a whole, but keep in mind this is a state issue, and has very little if anything to do with Washington, or on the federal level of government.

    • 1 year ago
  • Persecuted
  • Angeliron
  • Persecuted
  • nanac
    • +1
      nanac  

    • It's getting to the point where as everybody running for political office, should be required to take a mental/phycological examination prior to running for office....Just because you win an election, or some billionaire pays your way into office, doesn't mean that you are qualified to serve.....Republicans will do anything to support corporations or get elected..Allowing college students or anyone to carry guns on campus, is another retarded idea purposed by unqualified politicians..Far too many college students abuse alcohol/drugs, or isn't mature enough to handle guns...I think that it would do more harm than good..

    • 1 year ago
  • Persecuted
    • 0
      Persecuted  
    • nanac:

      they do need to take a psychological examination, along with an ethics examination... its not that these douche bags are crazy, its that the NRA writes big checks

    • 1 year ago
  • TheAmericanPatriot
    • +2
      TheAmericanPatriot  

    • Dang now criminals can bring guns on to campus. Oh wait, they did before that is why they are called criminals. Now regular law abiding citizens can defend themselves.

    • 1 year ago
  • Persecuted
  • tverdell
    • +3
      tverdell  

    • Is anyone concerned about crimes of passion?

      What if you see your girlfriend making out with another guy.

      This could open a can of worms.

      And I am pro-gun btw. But everybody packing heat is of concern, especially since college students may not be vary mature.

    • 1 year ago
  • Persecuted
  • FLeggplant
    • +1
      FLeggplant  

    • I want to know when someone is going to write a law protecting the rest of us from being in close proximity to these paranoid, gun-happy cowards?
      I understand having a gun in your home for protection but, to feel as though you have to carry a concealed weapon 24-7 IMO is paranoia and cowardice at it's worst.
      What most puzzles me is that the higher percentage of people who are obsessed with carrying a gun consider themselves religious.
      I was under the impression that God was supposed to protect you from harm. And, if for some reason he fails to protect you, it should be considered as your time to die. Should you not be happy to join God in your death?

    • 1 year ago
  • TheAmericanPatriot
  • Radical_Centrist
    • +1
      Radical_Centrist  
    • FLeggplant:

      The Founding Fathers already have. The Law if you will is called the second Amendment to the US Constitution. Now if some homicidal gun wielding NUT were to bust into your Classroom you would probably be one of the first to seek refuge BEHIND the first "paranoid, gun-happy coward" you could find.

    • 1 year ago
  • Radical_Centrist
  • sugarlilly
  • FLeggplant
  • randallr01
    • +2
      randallr01  

    • Let the stubborn idiots pass the bill. And then an innocent life will be shed (or twelve). And then, well... I guess they'll realize the consequences of this bill, at the expense of other less fortunate humans.

    • 1 year ago
  • 2helenahandbasket
    • 0
      2helenahandbasket  
    • randallr01:

      randallr01, imagine the difference it could have made in many of these college massacres if even ONE person had a way of defending himself. Guns carried by law abiding citizens are for PROTECTION from guns carried by criminals.

    • 1 year ago
  • ozoneocean
    • 0
      ozoneocean  

    • Maybe they should go further? Make it a law that guns MUST be carried, BUT, they have to be silver revolvers and they MUST be carried openly in hip holsters from leather belts stuffed with spare bullets.
      You MUST ALSO wear an oversized silver belt buckle, a big cowboy hat, leather cowboy boots with silver spurs that make "tchink, tchink" noises as you walk, a stylish cowboy shirt and a red bandanna.

      Failure to comply with the rules results in a compulsory tarring and feathering and being run out of town.

    • 1 year ago
  • Nick19
    • +1
      Nick19  

    • Yep, that makes so much sense to me. We have a gun problem since it seems like there is a loophole. What should we do? Need more guns

    • 1 year ago
  • Ricky84
    • 0
      Ricky84  

    • I support this because the gun free zone only makes sense in the very unlikely hypothetical where a LEGAL concealed carry individual (which is rare enough) destined to commit a crime with its gun is stopped specifically by the preventative outlawing of guns in that area. IMHO that's about as paranoid and over reaching as sacrificing everyones privacy to make sure terrorists aren't trying to attack our freedom.

      Assaults with a gun, attempted and full blown murder is already illegal enough. Drawing on another legal line in the dirt is not really going to do much to protect you against crazy people.

    • 1 year ago
  • Pheena187
  • MizPiz
  • randallr01
  • remanns
  • cclark_productions
  • tommic
    • +1
      tommic  

    • Wait until a crazed gunman goes on a killing spree and one of these concealed persons carrying pulls out their gun and starts shooting, I bet more innocent lives are lost. FBI, State Police, Special forces, DEA all train in live fire exercises in which they must make split second decisions on who to shoot, the pop ups some good guys and bad guys. And it takes thousands of practices to get it almost right, even then once in a while they kill a good guy. Texas is the dumbest state in the nation, as proven by their High School graduation rates and number of incarcerated in prison

    • 1 year ago
  • Radical_Centrist
  • Ricky84
    • +1
      Ricky84  
    • tommic:

      Wow you're implying a lot there. First off the required minimum firearm training for your average police officer is WELL within the means of your average joe. There is also a robust community of gun enthusiast that train both law enforcement and private citizens in the same exact tactics. All in all if you wanted to develop the skill set possessed by even a specialist in law enforcement you absolutely could.

      You're also ignoring the most basic reality of self defense. I am or you are at a distinct advantage at defensing oneself from a physical attack, unless of course you're arguing that we should all have our own personal police bodyguard that follows us around at all times. When and if the police, FBI, Special Forces, DEA response time equals or at the very least is comparable to my reaction time you might have an argument, but even then I have a much greater incentive to protect my own wellbeing than any individual has to risk his own neck for my own.

    • 1 year ago
  • tommic
    • 0
      tommic  
    • Ricky84:

      First I did not include average police officers who do not undergo intense such training. Second, its more like a thousand hours of that type specialized training I'm talking about.
      Third, your thought that your going to be able to train to those levels without professional instruction is downright stupid, you cannot, one needs the space the setup and all the tools necessary to train for it. Your arguement falls way short of reality. But your one of the gun owners who believes he can be some kind of hero or self defense specialist. As someone who trained in martial arts for 11 years I can assure you it took me years to become able to disarm a knife weilding assailant or a person pointing a gun at me a close range, thats reaching range. otherwise your full of shit. Thousands of hours or years but it does not happen just because you can shoot. And if someone is farther away from me with a gun, I take all effort to avoid his or her being able to hit me. Its called training.

    • 1 year ago
  • Ricky84
    • 0
      Ricky84  
    • Image
    • tommic:

      Yes but almost all the situations where you’d expect an average police officer to respond to are also the same exact situations a private citizen with a gun to arm him or herself in preparation for. No one is trying to the weigh the ability of a private citizen to train and perform a hostage/rescue situation, that’s absurd. However the point, which is very relevant to this discussion, is the only time you’d expect a specialized unit like SWAT, the FBI and so on and so forth to respond to come to your aid is when you ARE a hostage.

      So to be fair you never really answered my rebuttal. Why can’t a private citizen train to do the same sort of thing you we expect a police officer to do when the shit hit’s the fan?

      You said.

      “Third, your thought that your going to be able to train to those levels without professional instruction is downright stupid, you cannot, one needs the space the setup and all the tools necessary to train for it.”

      I said

      “There is also a robust community of gun enthusiast that train both law enforcement and private citizens in the same exact tactics.”

      I was talking specifically about, as you said, “professional instruction.” A cursory glance at Google , which I uploaded as my pic, clearly shows enough evidence to render your claim as false. There are many companies that specialize in training private individuals how to perform the actions you would expect a private citizen would reasonably undertake if they were unlucky enough to find themselves in that situation.

      Again I’m not specifically talking about hostage rescue or anything of the like, however at the same time when you compare the separate objectives there is still a lot of overlap. Proper techniques to entering, clearing, securing a room, nonverbal hand signals, the proper way to treat various wounds immediately come to mind.

      “Your arguement falls way short of reality.”

      At this point you haven’t demonstrated an understanding of my argument so unfortunately you’re not in a position to judge whether its valid or not.

      “ As someone who trained in martial arts for 11 years I can assure you it took me years to become able to disarm a knife weilding assailant or a person pointing a gun at me a close range, thats reaching range. otherwise your full of shit.”

      Lol so as a martial artist are you really trying to suggest that you cannot learn self defense techniques that include the use of a gun?

      “ And if someone is farther away from me with a gun, I take all effort to avoid his or her being able to hit me.”

      Honest question. How far can you expect a determined individual to be able to travel and assault another with a knife before the hypothetical “VICTIM” who is cognizant of the attack can draw and fire his handgun?

    • 1 year ago
  • tommic
    • 0
      tommic  
    • Ricky84:

      So Ricky go buy your gun take the training and if the shit does hit the fan just hope you hit the right person. You act as if its so easy to train and be able to execute that I encourage you to do it. I wonder how you would feel if you shot an innocent? All I am saying is that its not as easy as gun people believe. Especially when your target is shooting back, remember most who have decended to this sort of crime have nothing to lose

    • 1 year ago
  • Ricky84
    • 0
      Ricky84  
    • tommic:

      “So Ricky go buy your gun take the training and if the shit does hit the fan just hope you hit the right person.”

      Thanks?

      “You act as if its so easy to train and be able to execute that I encourage you to do it.”

      To be fair I implied it would not be that difficult to find the right places where you could learn advanced firearm tactics. I never said it would be easy to become a expert at those tactics. Personally I don’t think it would be easier to become an expert in firearms as it would to become an expert racecar driver or whatever.

      “I wonder how you would feel if you shot an innocent?”

      Implying gun owners have a substandard sense of morality because they choose to arm themselves with the weapons that better reflect the technological and tactical understanding of the century they actually live in.

      Or in other words,

      Good sir I will challenge you to a duel forthwith on the grounds that your vile simplification of my peers comes as an affront to my sensibilities unless you, before the eyes and ears of our lord who art thou in heaven, reject thy support of things to which I dislike. Additionally I will forever decry your ilk as rapists of little puppies should you not accept what I proclaim with nary a supporting argument to justify it.

      “All I am saying is that its not as easy as gun people believe.”

      Which is a position that is not exactly coming from an unbiased source. Granted either is my own but if we were going to be completely, and shamelessly honest about the whole thing I think the plethora of supportive evidence from around the world would confirm that guns are a pretty nifty thing when it comes to personal defense.

      “Especially when your target is shooting back, remember most who have decended to this sort of crime have nothing to lose”

      So the obvious answer to that type of threat is to challenge it to or rely solely upon hand to hand combat? At any rate I think you’re simplifying the issue, greatly. The gun is undeniably a power tool. You’ve acknowledged and used this fact in your arguments in more than one occasion.

      Now you’re arguing that fact is lost to criminals, whom frequently utilize firearms in the commission of a crime, which would at least imply they in some way shape or form recognize the power of that firearm.

    • 1 year ago
  • bike10
  • Mark701
  • MizPiz
  • Radical_Centrist
  • Radical_Centrist
    • +3
      Radical_Centrist  
    • Image

    • At the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, VA on January 16, 2002 Peter Odighizuwa came to campus. He had been suspended due to failing grades. Odighizuwa was angry and waving a gun calling on students to “come get me”.

      The students, seeing the gun, ran. A shooting spree started almost immediately. In seconds Odighizuwa had killed the school dean, a professor and one student. Three other students were shot as well, one in the chest, one in the stomach and one in the throat.

      Two Students Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges heard shooting. Mikael was outside the school having just returned to campus from lunch when he heard the shots. Tracy was inside attending class. Both immediately ran to their cars. Each had a handgun locked in the vehicle.

      Bridges pulled a .357 Magnum pistol and he later said he was prepared to shoot to kill if necessary. He and Gross both approached Odighizuwa at the same time from different directions. Both were pointing their weapons at him. Bridges yelled for Odighizuwa to drop his weapon. When the shooter realized they had the drop on him he threw his weapon down. A third student, unarmed, Ted Besen, approached the killer and was physically attacked.

      But Odighizuwa was now disarmed. The three students were able to restrain him and held him for the police. Odighizuwa is now in prison for the murders he committed. His killing spree ended when he faced two students with weapons. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to ARMED RESISTANCE.

    • 1 year ago
  • samthesixth
  • Nephwrack
  • Radical_Centrist
    • +1
      Radical_Centrist  
    • Nephwrack:

      The violence was most certainly REDUICED. This man had the ammunition and INTENTION to kill MANY more people it was ONLY the fast action of these three Men that saved possibly tens of people from death that day.

    • 1 year ago
  • EmperorThan
    • +4
      EmperorThan  

    • Guns are Pandora's box, from the moment they were created they couldn't be uncreated. Rednecks and killers will take them to school regardless, better to allow the rest of the students to have some defense from attack if they want it. But make sure to legislate the shit out of imprisoning them if it misfires (killing someone or not) in class.

      Personally, I will always decide pacifism to solve any problems I encounter. Even if it kills me.

    • 1 year ago
  • Radical_Centrist
  • cantucwearebrothers
  • Radical_Centrist
  • cantucwearebrothers
  • RojoGatto
  • Nephwrack
    • 0
      Nephwrack  
    • RojoGatto:

      i have to agrre with you there ... BUT... it's the irresponsible ones that give guns a bad name. so i think guns are better left at home. Sun Tzu said : Weapons are tools of ill omen. meditate on that.

    • 1 year ago
  • mitekillem
    • +2
      mitekillem  

    • Nice. No more getting arrested for polishing my gun on the way to my next History exam. Lately...I've been getting a lot of A's too. ...lol weird.

    • 1 year ago
  • a619ko
  • samthesixth
  • Nephwrack
  • maasanova
  • bambuu
  • of10rot10
  • Nephwrack
  • maasanova
  • bambuu
  • of10rot10
  • maasanova
    • 0
      maasanova  
    • of10rot10:

      Sorry didn't mean to sound snide and thanks for the link I didn't know about that incident.

      Intersting that the University of Texas Tower Sniper's profile fits the bill and has all the markings of typical American mass murderer with his military connections and being all hopped up on drugs.

      I think that the first gun control legislation was introduced just after that incident.

    • 1 year ago
  • bambuu
  • samthesixth
  • bambuu
  • Nephwrack
  • samthesixth
  • bambuu
  • savroD
  • Nephwrack
    • +2
      Nephwrack  

    • gods. yes i support gun ownership but this shit is just stupid. i'm beginning to think the Texas lawmakers are compensating for other areas.

    • 1 year ago
  • MizPiz
  • Nephwrack
    • 0
      Nephwrack  
    • MizPiz:

      no, really, i think texas lawmakers have tiny penii. i believe that any law abiding citizen should be able to buy an AK-47 ( i personally like the AK-103 ) but i think the antiquated view of guns in states like texas and az is stupid. we dont live in the old west. (YES I"M TALKING TO YOU TEXAS REPUBLICANT'S) why? open carry does a shitload more than concealed carry to deter crime. allowing guns on university campus is like allowing a sex offender to teach elementary school. no one in their right mind would need a gun on a university campus, and the sad fact is the law will only be exploited by some loughner type. there are still tasers, stun guns, pepper spray, martial arts and knives. why the fuck does anyone need a gun at a university campus?

    • 1 year ago
  • oppressed1
  • bambuu
  • Mark701
  • FtheBULLSHT
  • MizPiz
more from Community:
from the community

top videos