You gave me a D?? BANG!

[Photographer]

That could never happen, right?

[Marengo]

1. How often has it happened?

[DetlefK]

5. Well, we never had a global thermonuclear war.

And despite the FACT that there never was one and nobody wants one, people are somehow anxious about the possibiliy that one could be started by a crazy person doing something crazy.

[pinboy3niner]

14. Thank God for Matthew Broderick!

[irishlassie]

46. University of Arizona-- 3 Nursing School Professors killed October 29, 2002

On October 29, 2002, a nursing student killed three of his nursing professors because he was failing their courses.

See link from the NYT below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/29/us/student-kills-3-instructors-and-himself-at-u-of-arizona.html

[Duckhunter935]

52. Was that person a legal

Concealed carry permit holder?

[etherealtruth]

98. yES . All the news stories indicate he was ...

Flores always carried a handgun under his shirt. He had a concealed weapons permit and was an expert marksman in the military.

http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue2/2002/11/01/63993-girlfriend-flores-always-had-concealed-weapon/


representative link from an internet search .... all yielded the same answer

[Marengo]

53. That makes 2 incidents indicated so far in this thread. Did the U of A permit firearms on campus...

When this shooting occurred?

[jberryhill]

60. No

And drunk driving is not permitted on roadways where people are killed by drunk drivers.

However, it is clearly true that permitting drunk driving will increase the number of people killed by drunk drivers.

MOST drunk drivers do not get into accidents, and MOST of them make it where they are going without incident.

[Marengo]

65. How many shootings have occurred on campuses that permit firearms, and how many of...

The shooters were licensed for concealed carry?

[jmg257]

68. Good point. We don't, nor should we, all lose our ability to drive because a few will drive drunk.

And people will get killed because of them .

[jberryhill]

69. No one has said that

But there is also no driving permitted on campus sidewalks, nor need driving be permitted everywhere all of the time.

We do test drivers periodically for proficiency.

[jmg257]

71. Agree - AFAIK, no one called for no driving at all. Yes - like no drunk driving,

not allowing people to drive on sidewalks is also usually a good idea...car vs pedestrian often doesn't go too well. Surely there are also laws concerning using your vehicle as a dangerous weapon.

Privileges can only go so far.

Typically drivers are tested when they get their license - I am all for that too!
Some proficiency is always a good thing.

[procon]

85. Even one is too many, yeah?

Stop making excuses for bringing a loaded weapon into public spaces. There is no justification. Anyone who is that paranoid that they can't leave home without it should stay there, surrounded by the objects that make them feel safe. Gun bearers are indistinguishable from any killer with a gun and they should not inflict their insecurities on innocent bystanders who also have a right to be safe in public.

[Marengo]

89. Can you provide a cite or link to where I have made "excuses"?

[procon]

95. That's a weak response.

Try harder. We've been hearing these excuses for decades, from the NRA's monumental and horrific paeans to the gun, to the breathless excuses tossed around by those who try to justify guns in public with a collection of straw man, machismo arguments concocted from sheer paranoia. That alone should be enough to disqualified those people from ever owning a weapon. It is apparent to everyone that the current condition cannot stand because a society where armed men can deliberately terrorise other citizens is no longer a civilized society. Thankfully the series of recent appeals court rulings are against gun exhibitionists, and I look forward to seeing public safety restored.

[Marengo]

97. You made a claim, now back it up. Where, specifically, have I made excuses?

[procon]

101. That's terrible.

Does this dodgey old technique actually work for you? It never worked very well for my toddlers. Seriously, is it your excuse then, that guns on campus is based a claim that since a specific category of gun violence seems to happen infrequently, guns are therefore great and restrictions are unnecessary? The logic is completely nonexistent.

[Marengo]

107. Where have I stated that restrictions are unnecessary. Please provide a citation.

You are expending a great deal of effort to avoid providing evidence of what you claim I believe. Why is that.

[procon]

112. Why do you think that irrelevant semantics are a valid excuse for gun violence?

You're stuck, yeah?

[Marengo]

117. You are claiming I hold a position that I have not articulated. How can this not be considered...

Dishonest? What does that say of of the strength of your argument or your integrity?

[Marengo]

125. I'm still waiting on a cite to where I stated restrictions are unnecessary. Or, do we need to open..

A discussion about your integrity?

[procon]

127. Yes, daddy.

I see that you fancy yourself as quite the authoritarian figure. You've made the same repetitive demands throughout this thread -- did you even notice? -- ordering everyone to comply with your edicts and behaving like a troll. You've bullied a lot of other posters to avoid responding with any substantive reply on the issue of guns on campus. Now you're treading into stalker territory, still at it, hunting for another go round long after anyone else has responded to this thread. Cut you bad, yeah?

Still, petty nuances aside, you're continuing to dodge the topic of this thread and remain focused on salvaging your ego. So, here's the deal, Big Cheese, I'm waiting, too. Can you make a cogent reply here and actually address guns in any public spaces? Since the sight of a stranger with a gun is terrifying to most people, why would you, a purportedly normal person, albeit one with a loaded gun, deliberately do something so insanely provocative? Why are guns even necessary, let alone appropriate, needful, and hardly non-threatening, in a school, or any other public setting?

[Marengo]

128. Please cite where I have stated restrictions are unnecessary, and to where...

I have made excuses for carrying loaded weapons into public spaces. No other conversation can occur until either you do so, or acknowledge none such stated positions exist.

[beevul]

130. I had to read that twice...

I had to read that twice to make sure I wasn't misreading it.

You really ARE playing the accusatory authoritarian/'daddy' card, and then immediately after, demanding that that poster justify his/her/others choices to you.

Hipocrisy and irony, live together in perfect harmony...

Since the sight of a stranger with a gun is terrifying to most people...

That hasn't been established, and it can't be, since it isn't factually true.

[procon]

138. I regret that the absurd irony was not as apparent to you as it was to me; my bad!

I look forward to reading your scathing criticism of the actual authoritarian figure I rebuked. On the other hand, perhaps a thoughtful comment on the actual topic of this thread (which is what I keep asking for, yeah?) would be the better course of valor and courage for you.

Look here, now at first blush, I am somewhat puzzled about why, as a group, the pro-gun eccentrics seem to concentrate on repeating ad homs, trivial fault-finding, and flashing their tempers to demand attention to their self serving, irrelevant whims... much like the fellow above, for example. It is exceedingly obvious that most of the substantive discussion is being shouldered by folks that want to see guns out of their public spaces. Since there is no succinct and valid counter argument to be found, and in light on the recent appeals court ruling against guns, I am very encouraged that public safety will be restored.

[jmg257]

141. "I am very encouraged that public safety will be restored." Are you talking Texas campuses, or

public spaces in general?

[procon]

146. What is your reasoning why one public venue should be different from another?

I referenced a case brought to the federal appeals court in San Francisco that challenged a California law that imposed stringent conditions on anyone applying for a concealed-carry permit. The ruling stated that the Second Amendment of the Constitution does not guarantee any right for gun owners to carry concealed weapons in public places.

With this decision the Ninth Circuit joins the Second, Third and Fourth circuits of the US Court of Appeals that have rendered similar rulings, upholding restrictions for concealed carry permits. It doesn't affect Texas, yet, but all these cases are wending toward the U.S. Supreme Court, although it's unlikely to move until the bench is fully manned again.

[friendly_iconoclast]

149. As the practice seems to be a safe one (at least in Texas), where's the problem?

http://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm

(tl,dr version- 108 Texas CCW license holder were convicted of felonies in 2015)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=198548

Out of a population of 940,877-that's *1* conviction for every 8711 permitees

http://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/chl/reports/ActLicAndInstr/ActiveLicandInstr2015.pdf

Active License/Certified Instructor Counts
As of December 31, 2015


Active License Holders:
937,419
Certified Instructors:
3,458

These numbers reflect the number of licensed individuals and certified instructors

[procon]

151. Where is the human "safety" component?

It's also safe to drive a car, but there are rules and restrictions that ensure public safety. The courts have a long history of rulings that restrict Constitutional rights, so there is no guarantee that anyone can do as they please. You omit people and give me C&P dry statistics that completely ignore everyone's basic human need to feel safe and not be terrorized in their own communities.

Most Americans don’t own a gun, and they want more gun control because they just want go about their ordinary business with a certain reasonable expectation for peace of mind and public safety in our civilized society. We expect that a visit to the neighborhood Starbucks for our morning latte will not include coming in contact with someone with a gun and being terrified, worried about some stranger's mental state, his motives or intent.

[jmg257]

153. Some people carry/want guns so they can feel safer. Other people don't want

them to have guns so they themselves can feel safe and not terrorized.

Just an observation of why this is always such a difficult conversation.
Everyone's experiences being different. As are the reactions to fear, which is such a powerful motive for all involved.

[jmg257]

150. Generally I don't. I also think that is the same argument many pro-gunners use.

Basically, if you are licensed/permitted to carry in one place, why not 'all'?

I wasn't sure if you were talking restoring safety to campuses in Texas, or had a wider focus.

ETA: Whatever happened with that DC decision from May saying they had to be shall issue? (is that one you referred to?)

[beevul]

152. I can't criticise scathingly or otherwise, of a figure who isn't what you say...

Last edited Sun Aug 28, 2016, 08:34 PM - Edit history (1)

I look forward to reading your scathing criticism of the actual authoritarian figure I rebuked.

I can't criticise scathingly or otherwise, a figure who isn't what you say, to whom you didn't actually do what you say you did.

You're the one on the authoritarian side of this issue, not that poster.

On the other hand, perhaps a thoughtful comment on the actual topic of this thread (which is what I keep asking for, yeah?) would be the better course of valor and courage for you.

I've done so, elsewhere. My comment was about your absurd spin doctoring, and your deliberate mischaracterization of another poster and the position they espouse.

That's not 'trivial fault finding', its calling bullshit on a bullshitter.

It is exceedingly obvious that most of the substantive discussion is being shouldered by folks that want to see guns out of their public spaces.

Chants of 'penis' and 'compensating' and 'gun humper' aren't exactly substantive discussion, and this may come as a surprise and a shock - they're not exactly what anyone would call 'intellectual heavy lifting'.

[procon]

154. Ack... please don't tell me about your penis problems.

Seriously, is that what's upsetting you? I dunno, is it symptomatic, a fear shared by other emotionally high strung, gun owners? Be calm. If you get this riled up over a textual disagreement on public safety, whatever might you do to make your point with a gun at hand? Scary thought, yeah?

All that pent up rage is illustrative of why the public wants more restrictions on guns. Now just look at my state, California, that just implemented 6 new gun control laws... thank you, Gov. Brown!

Requires background checks for people who want to purchase ammunition, licenses for sellers of ammunition and sales data to be collected.

SB880: Expands the definition of “assault weapon.”

AB1511: Limits who a gun owner can lend their firearm to.

SB1446: Prohibits the possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

AB1135: Bans so-called “bullet buttons,” a tool developed by gun manufacturers that allows magazines to easily detach.

AB1695: Makes it a misdemeanor to make a false report to law enforcement that a firearm has been lost or stolen.


http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Gov-Jerry-Brown-signs-six-gun-control-bills-8336745.php

There's also another initiative to tighten California’s gun control laws that has qualified for the November ballot. Its interesting to note that the supporters have banked $4 million to promote the measure, while the pro gun opposition has only been able to raise about $426,000, and California’s Secretary of State reports that they appear to have gone into debt, spending more than the contributions received. There simply is very little backing here for those who want more free ranging guns.

[beevul]

155. Ack please dont tell me about your control problems.

Seriously, is that what's upsetting you? I dunno, is it symptomatic, a fear shared by other emotionally high strung, gun owners? Be calm. If you get this riled up over a textual disagreement on public safety, whatever might you do to make your point with a gun at hand? Scary thought, yeah?

Uhh...wut? Upset? Riled up? ROFL. Im sitting here laughing at you, and if I had a gun in my hand...I'd still be sitting here laughing at you.

All that pent up rage is illustrative of why the public wants more restrictions on guns.

What rage?

You don't have a telepsychology diploma signed by someone named hoyt do you?

[procon]

157. Still can't comment on the topic?

Maybe in between your bouts of hysterical laughter and earnest protestations of denial, you might actually have a thoughtful response to the issues at hand or the current events I've highlighted in support? C'mon, there must be something relevant you want to add here.

[beevul]

159. I was just following your lead.

You weren't really saying anything about the topic yourself.

[Marengo]

158. You may also cite where I have stated I open carry in a public space.

[Marengo]

96. Well, you've had about an hour. Where's the link or cite I asked for?

[jberryhill]

59. Prof. William Klug, UCLA

Instructor Djamshid (Amir) Asgari, Cal State Northridge

Assistant Professor Robin Rogers, U of Arizona
Assistant Professor Cheryl McGaffic, U of Arizona
Assistant Professor Barbara Monroe, U of Arizona

Prof. David Eshelman, Central Missouri State

[Marengo]

61. 1987, 1993, & 2002. Anything more recent on campuses that permit firearms, or have for some...

Time?

[Rex]

114. Why? The point was made and you just cannot accept the facts.

So what would further verification mean to you? Nothing.

[Marengo]

118. Why not? I like to have as much information as possible before staking out a position...

Why would you interpret any more into it?

[friendly_iconoclast]

135. Only one of those incidents *may* have involved a person with a permit, per a quick...

...Google search of the names given.

[friendly_iconoclast]

143. And none of them happened where carrying a gun was legal

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. What will stop it from happening?

[Photographer]

4. Well, we could make it more difficult for nutjobs to get their hands on guns...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. At the expense of seeming cynical I can't help but wonder if the statement

make it more difficult for nutjobs to get their hands on guns

carries the subtext, "Anyone who wants a gun is a nut job."

Killers do not spontaneously emerge. They have histories whether they're spree killers, career criminals, one-time killers or suicides there are red flags. The question is: Why are we overlooking the underlying behavior in favor of restricting an easily replaced tool?

If someone decides to attack a professor over a grade they will do so regardless of any signs posted.

[Photographer]

12. Yeah, pretty much.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. I assume you're referring exclusively to my intepretation of the presumed subtext.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. I made several statements in that post. You declined to make a plain reply.

Judging from your OP and temperament I doubt you were agreeing to any other point I raised.

Get a fucking life.

You're current post is rather ironic considering how quickly and the degree to which you became hostile while lamenting in your OP about others going to extremes over reasonable things they disagree with. That sort of quickness to anger would serve as a red flag in many circles.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. You seem to feel lots of thing but

self control, civility, and respect for counter arguments do not appear to be among the many things you feel.

[Photographer]

26. Yawns.

[Eleanors38]

77. "Yawns." Beyond some fatuous animosity towards people in the ether, sounds like you don't care.

[Duckhunter935]

28. I think you should apologize

Personal attacks should not be tolerated

[pintobean]

35. too late for that

5 and flagged

[Duckhunter935]

47. Indeed so

[mythology]

139. Because it's the "easily replaced tool" that seems result in so many deaths

Yes obviously in theory somebody could drive a truck down a crowded sidewalk as in Nice, or somebody could fill a moving truck with fertilizer and make a bomb like in Oklahoma City.

But for the most part they don't. They use guns. Guns are easy to get, easy to use, easy to conceal. They are a coward's tool.

But go ahead, stick your head in the sand and pretend that access to guns aren't the problem. Go ahead and ignore that more domestic violence homicides have been committed with a gun than any other weapon. Go ahead and ignore that suicides attempted with a gun are vastly more likely to kill than other methods. Those of us who aren't comfortable with ignoring those needless deaths have lives to save. But maybe there is some number at which point you will say it's enough. Apparently it's higher than the 33,169 who died in 2013. Maybe it will be if somebody close to you dies due to a gun. Of course, they are more likely to die from a gun you own than from a stranger with a gun.

Oh and for the record, statistically speaking, while firearm ownership rate has a positive correlation to death via firearm, it has no correlation with the non-firearm homicide rate, making the argument that somebody would just switch to another weapon, frankly stupid. I'm sorry if you don't like evidence, but well, tough.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2015/01/good_guy_with_a_gun_myth_guns_increase_the_risk_of_homicide_accidents_suicide.html

Guns need to go away. We've proven as a species we can't own them responsibly.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

140. "We've proven as a species we can't own them responsibly. "

Which is why I refuse to be defenseless in an dangerous world.

[friendly_iconoclast]

144. "Which is why I refuse to be defenseless in an dangerous world." And which is why I...

...refuse to allow the state a monopoly on violence.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

147. The usual refrains are --

"It could never happen here and if it did you couldn't stop it and if you tried you'd just be a RWer."

Apparently, to some, in order to be a good Progressive one must be naive, helpless, and cliquish.

[friendly_iconoclast]

148. There's a one-sentence reply for that: "Donald Trump and his supporters"

[jmg257]

145. A big part of the issue is that they are not going away.

Unless the number of guns is DRASTICALLY reduced, or the relatively few who truly are not going to be responsible can be effectively dealt with, things will go on.

Blame it on the NRA, or the gun culture, or "cowards", or whatever else can be pointed at, but things won't be changing much anytime soon.

[baldguy]

3. Just needs to happen once.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. Like pit bull maulings?

[baldguy]

20. 3 vs 30,000

Try again

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. Just needs to happen once.

[ileus]

33. If it only saves one life...

[linuxman]

39. Saw that comin'

[Marengo]

34. LOL! Well, that was easy.

[baldguy]

103. Why is it that RWers always try to deflect & distract with non sequiturs

when their argument goes south?

Just keep trying to defend those indefensible "Second Amendment Solutions".

[Nuclear Unicorn]

108. "deflect & distract with non sequiturs when their argument goes south?"

You're calling an anarchist a RWer because I applied your standards to your statements.

That is deflecting and distracting with non-sequiturs and name calling because your argument went south.

Just keep trying to defend those indefensible "Second Amendment Solutions".

If guns aren't an acceptable solution then what do you intend to enforce gun control with?

[baldguy]

122. Just as bad.

Anarchy is where the worst of the extreme Right Wing and the Worst of the extreme Left wing meet, at the opposite end of civilization.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

123. I would offer it's authoritarianism.

The kind that only trusts the self-selecting elite with power, cannot tolerate dissent, and seeks to criminalize independence all the while relying on distortions to push forward what it is too ashamed to admit its goals.

If people cannot be trusted to govern themselves then none can be trusted to govern others and those who demand to govern others are the last to be trusted with the power to do so.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

126. Apparently you've abandoned any discussion of facts in order to hide behind labeling me RW

It speaks to the poverty of your position.

You can't even get my gender correct.

[beevul]

129. The extreme left wing and extreme right wing may meet at anarchy, however...

The extreme left wing and extreme right wing may meet at anarchy, however, the other end of the scale from anarchy isn't 'civilization', its authoritarianism.

You just call it civilization, which is an admission of sorts.

[TexasTowelie]

6. I knew a few people in college that were so obsessed with their GPAs

that there would have been a bang if they got a B.

[Eleanors38]

78. The only grade-obsessed "Bang" I knew of was an offer from a student at U. of Texas...

She was in a panic over having missed the first semester exam (I was the T.A.), she said she would do whatever I wanted after class. This blurted out before I could explain the prof's policy was to let the next exam (cumulative) results count for the missed exam. She turned rather red, quietly thanked me and left. Kind of embarassing.

[linuxman]

7. Is this thread in reference to something in the news this week?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. A federal judge declined to grant an motion to allow a university in Texas to prohibit

concealed carry permit holders to carry while on campus.

At least, that is my interpretation of the OP's connection to recent events.

[linuxman]

11. Oh. Seems like a silly OP then.

I mean, is a student who would shoot a prof. over a grade going to leave it at home and go "Fuck! I wish I were allowed to bring this to class. Then I'd murder that POS!".

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. While I absolutely agree with your assessment I't think discussion of opposing views is ever silly.

Everything is an opportunity to learn for all parties involved.

So long as discussion is actually occurring.

[Photographer]

19. NRA schill, eh?

[baldguy]

21. Yep

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. You think advocating for discussion is the mark of a shill?

linuxman called your OP silly and I defended your posting for the sake of discussion and you choose to insult me -- yet again.

[linuxman]

40. You're very uncivil, you know that?

[LanternWaste]

58. No doubt, allowing for only one single possibility is certainly the sign of a disciplined mind

No doubt, allowing for only one single possibility is certainly the sign of a disciplined mind lacking any biases...

Silly, indeed.

[eppur_se_muova]

70. Maybe this ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028104872

[rurallib]

17. U of Iowa 25 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Iowa_shooting

hard to forget that one for us Iowans.

The shooter didn't get a D, but didn't get the recognition he felt he deserved.

[Duckhunter935]

30. A couple of questions

Did he have a concealed carry permit? Was it legal for him to bring his weapon to the school? If weapons are banned on campus, what would prevent this act from happening!

[rurallib]

43. far as I know back then guns were banned on campus

so if you are saying there was no "good guy with a gun" you are right. IIRC even campus police didn't have guns back then. Not sure they even do today.

It was an isolated incident by a person who felt wronged.

[Duckhunter935]

50. So you are saying it was a person breaking the law

And the same can happen. This law is really irrelevant.

[rurallib]

102. most laws are irrelevant if there is no enforcement

Few people go the speed limit.
We have a presidential candidate who has made a career out of screwing people over.
Our economy was taken to the brink of extinction by a combination of lawless banksters and an administration that aided them.

So most laws are useless. The major power they have is the fear of punishment IF someone is caught.

Putting guns in the hands of everybody and thus empowering them to be their own enforcement seems like a formula for a whole lot of shooting without much regard to analysis of what is going on and what the consequences are. Life is not like the movies or bad TV shows.

[Duckhunter935]

105. Who wants to put weapons in the hands

of everybody?

[rurallib]

106. damned if I know. I thought that's what you were arguing for.

i sure don't. I have seen enough carnage in my life in a little midwestern town.

Most probably would have been avoided without easy access to guns. Families ripped to shreds, survivors with lifelong injuries.

Just having more people carry guns, legally or not just increases the chances they will be used.

[Duckhunter935]

111. I have NEVER argued or even spoke of that

So how did you think I was for that? Honest question.

[rurallib]

113. back in your first couple of responses

I was probably reading something into what you said. Thought you were angling to see a spot where you would show that legalized carry on campus could have prevented that attack at Iowa.

I get overly sensitive about guns. As I said I have had too many friends and acquaintances buried due to guns. Have had several threats due to LTTEs. Used to have a next door neighbor who had guns and an gripe against the city government when I was on council.

So I apologize if I made assumptions. Hope you can accept that apology and we can go forward to beat Trump.

[Duckhunter935]

115. Of course I accept that apology

I just get a little tired of people always saying firearms owners want everyone to have access to weapons.

[jmg257]

27. Oh it certainly can...some people are nuts...under pressure to get good grades.

Some even killed themselves over things like that.

[Photographer]

31. Far to often.

[ileus]

32. You earn D's...the instructor doesn't "give" anything.

What's stopped students from doing this already? Signs?

[Hoyt]

36. Gunners encouraging young people to arm up. How'd you like folks legally toting in your classrooms,

sitting next to your kid, playing cowboy defending poor helpless young women, getting their Man Card validated, . . . . . .








?resize=620%2C524&ssl=1

[Person 2713]

37. +1

[Younemeen]

41. hahaha

why's the guy in the first photo makes me laugh?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. That's Dylan Roof. He murdered 9 people in a church in Charleston, SC

He was also prohibited from owning a gun due to a felony drug conviction and in SC it is illegal to carry a gun into places of worship.

[Younemeen]

45. FU*K! that's already not funny

didn't know, he looks like a looser with a toy gun... but look what a looser can do...

[cyberswede]

55. That last image is gross.

Awful ad. What kind of person needs a gun like that to feel like a man?

[Eleanors38]

79. You may want to ask to poster. He seems up on these guys.

[michreject]

38. If that was going to happen

Do you think that a law telling them that they couldn't would stop them?

[Waldorf]

44. If this is in reference to the decision regarding the Texas Professors, does it really make a

difference before campus carry was allowed? Anybody before could carry a gun illegally and go bang on the D grade. At least now the ones carrying legally are 21, have had a FBI background check and been licensed. Do you think this new decision got rid of the people who carry firearms on campus illegally?

[Hoyt]

49. No need to make it legal and endorse immoral behavior, which is what NRA and other gunners want.

Not to mention those that need to boost their self-esteem and are stupid enough to believe a gun will help.

[beevul]

86. Theres nothing immoral about lawfully and peacably carrying a gun. Nothing.

Expecting the world to hinge on your biased delicate sensibilities on the other hand...

[friendly_iconoclast]

133. That's the philosophy of the notorious right wing reactionary, Robert Bork:

"But, in any event, physical danger does not exhaust the categories of harms that society may seek to prevent by legislation, and no activity that society thinks immoral is
victimless. Knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral."

Robert Bork, The Tempting of America, p. 123

[Hoyt]

137. Well "gunz are good" is philosophy of Trump and the white wing yahoos that support him.

[friendly_iconoclast]

142. Disapproval, however strongly felt, is not sufficient reason to ban anything

[Adrahil]

51. No. But being LEGAL means more people are likely to do it.

And in IMO, adding more guns to the mix is unlikely to improve anything.

[Hoyt]

56. EXACTLY! Just what we need, a gun store or two popping up next to pizza joints and clubs near

campus.

[Waldorf]

63. I imagine you would get a lot more trouble from the bars nearby than a gun store or two

opening up nearby.

[Hoyt]

73. Especially if they go from class to the bar with their gun tucked in their pants. Might be illegal,

but the law just makes it easier to happen.

Personally, I think campuses are right to fight back. Gun toting ignorance doesn't belong on campus.

[jmg257]

74. Apparently a felony...let's hope they learn that one when they get their permit.

And also figure out a safe plan of what to do with their piece when not carrying it.

[Hoyt]

75. How about the grow up, and act like an adult by leaving the friggin things at home.

[jmg257]

76. In Texas?? Not sure "adult" has much to do with it. The adult legislature passed the law after all.

Anyway, maybe not too many will take advantage of the law - any numbers on how many are carrying?

That article showed very little interest in the on-campus gun group.


Its usually no big deal carrying most places, but having to deal with safe storage all the times you aren't - seems it would be very annoying.

[Eleanors38]

80. Heh. McBride's Guns is on the edge of U.T.'s West Campus Neighborhood, down the street

at one time from a punk rock club, a queer bar, and a drive-thru beer distributor. And two pizza places. Businesses change, but McBride's is still there. Need to go by and see if they are running a parking lot sale on Rio shotgun shells.

[jmg257]

84. They will be glad of extra gun stores if UBC passes. Added convenience for all the private transfers

would not hurt if such a law is enacted.

[Eleanors38]

90. Probably would be convenient. But that store's stuff is high.

[Hoyt]

88. They look more like a true sportsman store, but customer base still lacks diversity.

Don't see a lot of so-called assault weapons, toters, holsters with confederate flags, people slobbering over gun strictly meant for shooting people, etc. Don't see them listing courses on shooting people and supplies for training to do so.

Personally, I would have described the site a bit differently than in your post.

[Eleanors38]

92. "Personally," I don't remember me describing it at all. Believe me it's a big store...

though I think you got hold of a clip at another locale -- gun show, perhaps?

[Marengo]

94. What's the issue with "diversity"?

[Hoyt]

99. I believe the vast majority of gunners, gun profiteers, NRA, etc., are white wingers.

Hypothesis has been confirmed by darn near every gun store, gun show, gun training session, gun ad, NRA meeting, etc., I've seen.

[Marengo]

100. How often do you go to the range, gun store, or gun show? How many CCW classes have you attended?

[Hoyt]

104. Ypy are free to post photos, start with a Massad Ayoob graduating class

from one of his popular shot to kill the boogeyman courses. Or, post photos of gun show attendees.

[Marengo]

109. Thats not an answer Hoyt. How about some numbers? How many times?

[Hoyt]

116. Search under "gun shows." Post first few photos that show the croud. Do same for NRA meeting.

[Marengo]

119. How many times have YOU visited a shooting range, gun show, or cow permit class? I want numbers.

[Hoyt]

120. Many times in my younger years, the gun nut yahoos became disgusting quickly. They were

all pretty much paranoid racist, white wing losers. Be glad to see evidence to contrary, but you've yet to provide it, probably because you recognize the truth even if you won't admit it.

[Marengo]

121. I'm not the one making any claims, you are. What did you visit many times? How many years...

Ago and where?

[Hangingon]

156. This doesn't look like the McBride's store to me.

This may have been filmed at asportsmen club meeting or at a gun show. McBride's is a nice store with knowledgeable staff. The inventor is pretty expensive.

[beevul]

87. You're slipping. You left out Chuck E Cheeze.

[Hoyt]

91. Glad you noticed. Guess that post won't go into your file.

[beevul]

93. File? Its called a brain.

I don't need a 'file', as you've been repeatedly told.

Did you forget? Maybe you need a file, of course you could forget where you put it.

Now reply with a snide comment about me carrying a gun in my pantz, wont you?

[hack89]

57. There is plenty of historic precedent. Texas is not the first to allow this on campus

what happened at all the other campuses where concealed carry is legal?

Let gets get the facts on the table.

[Adrahil]

48. My wife has had a few students who were nuts...

Now a nut determined to kill someone is not going to be deterred by a "no guns" rule. But having the gun right there could means a momentary urge becomes a permanent death.

[Hekate]

66. +1

[neeksgeek]

72. Exactly.

I'm in my fifth year teaching college. In that time I've had a few students make very poor grades, but only one actual incident where security had to be called to remove the student (who was not armed). He was banned from campus for a year.

It's rare but people do get angry. Making it easier for the angry to do harm is counter to the purpose of schools.

[RadiationTherapy]

54. It is more likely to "improve" grades.

Why even give Cs? They paid their tuition, they are packing guns, give them high grades.

[Eleanors38]

81. Strange, with all this grade inflation I thought everyone was bordering on Phi Beta Kappa.

Didn't know there was anymore blood. In the turnip.

[Hekate]

62. At the local campus of University of California a grad student's thesis was rejected....

Well, not so much rejected as was refused a place in the Library because he insisted on including a personal rant against his committee and entire departmental faculty for perceived slights and injustices. The Librarian said that was not going to be allowed. Take out the rant, and your thesis will be put on the shelves.

The guy went ballistic, but in a legalistic and loud and not literal fashion. It made the newspapers.

Given his state of mind, I think everyone was glad that firearms are not allowed on campus -- not in your car, not in your person, not in your dorm or locker -- unless you are a sworn officer of the law.

[jmg257]

64. Its true that some people should just not have (access to) guns...if their state of mind so easily

becomes such that killing for no good reason is a likely outcome.

I think guns will be the least of worries for this guy.

[brooklynite]

67. I cannot give a B- in a Grad class...

...without being prepared to strongly defend the grade to the Student, parents and Administration.

[Eleanors38]

83. Sounds like a much wider problem than gun laws, howeverwell-meaning, which are easily evaded.

[Throd]

82. "I was going to murder you with a gun, but then I remembered they are banned on campus."

[aikoaiko]

110. Could happen whether it was legal or not to carry on college campuses

But it rarely does.

[a la izquierda]

131. I've had a few students who are seriously...

Unhinged. Do I want them armed? Fuck no.

I don't care what any of the guns' rights folks say.

[friendly_iconoclast]

134. "Do I want them armed? Fuck no." Then arrange for metal detectors where you teach...

...as otherwise there's no way to prevent someone from bringing a gun to class.

[oneshooter]

136. You do know that in Texas

the minimum age to obtain a LTC is 21.

Or does that matter to you.