1. I call BS but whatever. 2. Well if you looked at my stats you have over 280K CHL's (Texas) out there yet only 1078 of the holders are 21. 3. It costs to much to ever be realized, gives a law abiding person no chance against a criminal with a gun, and takes away their right to self defense. 4. I already posted the numbers of 21 year olds in my previous post. Guess you ignored it. 5. Yeah I mean no way could a guy fighting for his own life RIGHT NOW be any faster reacting than the (hypothetical) cop taking a coffee break in the building. 6. OH MY GOD now I know you don't have a CHL. You have obviously never even bothered to read the law which makes me sad I justified your post with a response. Lets break down number 6 to the statements you said ------1. Ouch...lets see not true at all? Totally false? Pulled this from this air? Could not be MORE wrong? I cannot think of a way to describe this. -------2. also false. if this is false then why can you not carry on schools? oh yeah Penal Code 46.03 (1) --------3. paraphrased yeah thats true......oh no wait, its not cause there are things that exist called laws pertaining to these areas specifically, namely Penal Code § 46.03.(2)-(6) lets see.....courts? Good luck on your CHL exam. I recommend making it out of blue construction paper, looks more authentic.
OH MY GOD (see I can do it too), I never said I had one. I have submitted the request for materials pursuant to the law. The bottom line here is that you are a dufus who has obviously not spent much time on a college campus. If you think that college campuses will be safer by inviting more guns on campus then you are simply r****ded. So how do you square your desire for the rip rolling, Wild West college experience you desire with Penal Code Sec (a)(1) and (2)? Good luck getting that law changed, Tex.
You say this, but you don't have any hard evidence to back it up. None. Just speculation. Guns have never been allowed on campus so we don't know if their presence makes it safer, bottom line. And also, putting police officers everywhere on a college campus is absolutely an asinine comment. Just about every police dept. is under manned in the state, hell in the US for that matter. So what makes you think they can find enough qualified applicants (considering there were any applicants) for the job?
U of H had a bar & grill on campus on the bottom floor of the UC (student center), and I remember alcohol being permitted in dorms as long as you were over 21.
There aren't special rules for cops...the law on self-defense is the law for everyone. Incapacitating a cop doesn't justify deadly force. And if I really have to play this card I will - I practice criminal law, and no not the side you assume because of my stance on this issue. Again, in your initial post you said if they point a tazer at you you'd kill them, NOT if you thought it was a gun...so you are backpeddling, plain and simple. And the reason you're backpeddling is because you realize that you've acknowledged you'd lie to get out of being prosecuted, you'd shoot and kill someone knowing they had a tazer and that's just flat out illegal. So yes, I'm quite familiar with the totality of the circumstances and if you knew it was a tazer and shot anyway (which is what you said in your first post - if I really have to go quote it for you I will) you wouldn't be justified in killing the person.
there is special rules for cops for the reason I said. When someone like me is involved in a shooting (young male 20's) i first have to prove I am not the aggressor which is hard vs if I was 70 and a woman. Plus I have to answer the question "Why did you not flee" The jury has to decide if a "reasonable person" would have fled. A cop basically has a reason for being involved int he incident (its his job) and the reason he didn't flee (its his job)
Again, not back peddling. If I thought it was a gun I would kill. I would not lie under oath and say I thought it was a gun if I knew it was a Taser. However, I stand my ground when I say this: "If someone points a Taser at me I will shoot them." I can CLEARLY articulate fear for my life in that situation; clearly. But then a sleezy lawyer would try to come along and get the officer indicted for killing worthless scum bag who pointed the Taser.
this is the most ridiculous argument ever. criminals don't buy/steal one shot tasers. criminal attorney SpiffyRifi, please get your panties out of a bunch. this thing you have a problem with is off topic and unlikely to happen. plus it puts the lies told by whats his name off the page
So why do we not allow guns at stadiums, etc? One rationale is that we don't want to introduce guns at places where we have large concentrations of people. At A&M, in the larger class buildings, there were about a half dozen lecture halls that had classes of 400 to 500 people. Do the math. It's not a good idea. At A&M, there were UPs just driving around campus. Anytime I went to the University Police Department (usually to get a friend's car back for him since he got towed for parking in the wrong place), the place was full of cops. You work to find ways to get it done. This would be a difficult proposition, to be sure. It is, however, better than having a bunch of kids with their guns on campus. I love my Makarov, but I never needed to take it to class with me.
why should anyone read anything you have to say on this topic since you obviously will say anything regardless if its remotely true or you just made it up?
One rationale is: People that don't care about laws are going to bring a gun in IF THEY WANT TO regardless of the law. You let law abiding citizens LEGALLY carry it on campus, stadiums, etc. there isn't going to be a rash of crime/shootings. I will say it again in case you missed it: GUN FREE ZONES ARE VICTIM RICH ENVIRONMENTS
Then don't bother responding to it. The world will be a better place without your lunacy being spewed about.
Well now the truth comes out. You want there to be no restrictions on where CHL holders can carry. Good thing that most people don't exactly see it that way.
Not really. I have lived in NYC, a densely packed, heavily-gun restricted urban environment for the last 8 years, it happens to have an incredibly low murder rate - in fact by far the lowest murder rate of any of the the 10 largest cities in the US. Far lower than Houston - a much more gun friendly environment (497 homicides for over 7 million residents in the city limts. Contrast that with 350 for Houston, which boasts about 1.9 million in the city limts.) Please explain why I live in a far more "victim-rich environment" yet have dramatically fewer victiims.
Why does California, the most heavily regulated gun control state have a higher Violent crime rate than texas?
And New York city has lower than houston - answer my question as to why your syllogism breaks down. Look - you made the claim that less guns = more victims. I live in a place with less guns and less victims. reconcile the two, I asked first. You appear to be claiming that it's police. Well when I said there were more police on a college campus, you got upset and told me that was irrelevant. Reconcile that.
I love the fact that when I point out cali and Texas it is irrelevant because it doesn't make a good argument for you! My guess on why New York vs. Houston is because NYC has tons more cash, tons more cops and almost half the gound area to cover. Now answer my question on Texas v Cali. Let me say this and possibly you can understand it better (not a shot at you, its just I KNOW what we disagree on I just want you to understand) 1. If I was mayor of a city and I wanted to lower violent crime, I would lock down on the bad areas, increase number of police, increase punishment for violent crime, increase community centers, after school activities etc. 2. As a man looking out for my family and I want to protect them, I learn how to best protect and defend them. Its macro vs micro. This post probably puts refman's lies on the other page which is a shame.
Also I never made such a claim. In fact I said police is the best way several pages ago. Don't misquote me with such AUTHORITY
