Now it's duragatory to calls someone a Mexican. LOL If I offended you, good. It isn't even worth explaining myself (which is a must around here or you get labeled as a back peddler). You liberal pansies have fun.
No, I was talking about this: 1) Argument that alcohol + guns on campus was a bad idea. Your argument was: "good point although it is ALSO illegal to carry a handgun (even with a CHL) if you have been drinking. So this argument has nothing to do with drunks." You're assuming that just because a CHL is drunk, he will automatically not carry his gun since it is illegal. What? That's a pretty stupid assumption. Especially when you said how a no guns on campus law wouldn't deter someone if they really wanted to bring a gun on campus. How would alcohol or being drunk deter a CHL from carrying their gun? Furthermore, alcohol impairs judgement making it MUCH more likely they would still carry their gun. The argument was very much valid, but hey you "shot it down" because "it's illegal to carry a handgun if you've been drinking" - brilliant! 2) You cite the median age of rape victims and say the argument of CHL on campus is protecting yourself. You conveniently left out what % of females have a CHL, and what % of females are raped. I called you out on it and you "shot down" my argument by saying "well people with CHL don't really rape people usually, so your arguments dumb". Great argument and evidence. Once again, you assuming that more guns would decrease crime without backing it up with any evidence. You're the one making the argument that college campuses would be safer if guns were allowed - the burden on proof is on you. All you've done is make assumptions and ignore key points that put holes in your argument. There's more, but I've wasted enough time on this. I'll say this once again, you haven't proven anything in this thread. But keep trying.
1. They (DPS) have stats that show that law abiding CHL holders ARE likely to not drink and carry. If someone is OK with drinking and carrying (which is illegal) why would they also not have a problem with carrying without a license? 2. your argument was since more males have CHL than females that it would shift power. I said this is wrong because the power is already greatly in males favor. why does it matter what % of females are raped? not enough raped to justify letting them protect themselves?
off topic but does anyone else here notice that its only OK to use derogitory words if you put them in quotes? I know you used them because you are in fact actually quoting whats his name but if you ever follow a thread you will see that people are OK with using any slur as long as its in quotes.
For me, it comes down to context. WWR used the slur in a completely inappropriate context. He is a disgrace to law enforcement.
1. Because they would already have a gun with the CHL. Normal people don't just carry guns around. CHL holders do. Going to a bar or drinking at a friends house, they're not automatically going to think, "Oh, I better go home and put my gun away." I like how you said "law abiding CHL holders" - how many are not law abiding? 2. My argument was not that it would shift power - maybe you should read more carefully. Your argument was that it would help decrease the number of rape victims. My argument was that it's pretty rare for a female to have a CHL, thus invalidating your argument that they would be safer. In fact, more guns would potentially be in the hands of the people who commit the crimes - males. It doesn't even have to be someone with a CHL, as someone said. It can be a roommate, etc. who takes the gun from their room. It doesn't matter what % of females are raped - that was a rhetorical question because we all know they're the victims 9 out of 10 times. The point was they wouldn't have the guns you're clamoring for, so those rape numbers wouldn't plummet as you so suggested.
1. Comparing CHL holders conviction rates to the general population is quite easy. At 288K holders in Texas (20mil population) they account for 1.4% of the population. They represent 0% of sexual assault convictions in 2005, .1% of robbery convictions, and the list goes on. 2. Well around 20% of all CHL holders are female so thats over 50 thousand. And I never said that the NUMBERS would plummet i said it would give those high risk victims a chance to defend themselves.
HAHA. I looked back at my original post (the first post in this thread). Please tell me did I mention safer campus or self defense? What was my original point again?
if you're going to be a pompous bully you better be sure to have the intellectual muscle to back it up. You like accusing people of throwing out straw men but you're guilty of one of your own here. WWR's argument is that CHL holders be permitted to carry guns. He only brought up the policy's purported ineffectiveness to show that any fear that such permission would enable more crime is unwarranted because those who want to commit crimes will commit them regardless. That's not an argument for the abolition of a law simply because it is ineffective at achieving its goal (your alcohol and pot straw men). Its an argument that the ineffectiveness of a gun ban negates the objection that without the ban, more crime would ensue. Whether gun laws are effective or not I can't say, but that is his argument and if you're going to call an argument weak sauce at least have your rebuttal actually address that argument. So university students will think twice about carrying handguns because it violates school policy and might get them expelled, but the same students won't think twice about committing a crime with a handgun and face criminal penalties if they're allowed to carry them on campus? I see no reason why criminal penalties would serve as any less of a deterrent against students violating laws than expulsion deters students from violating university policies. Those students which aren't deterred by criminal law surely wouldn't be deterred by university policy. C'mon people, we can make points without being jerks. For what it's worth I'm against guns and think the 2nd amendment is commonly misinterpreted (even by the SCOTUS). hopefully they get it right with DC v Heller.
You're right...nothing sleazier than a lawyer actually making sure the law is enforced. I mean, here you are a clearly rational, unbiased (not racist in the least as evidenced by your remarks) person - we should forgo the entire judicial system and let you be judge, jury, and executioner. Gosh, all these sleezy lawyers who may actually want to hold you to the standard the law requires - the law which you are sworn to uphold...but hey, as long as you think their a scum bag, that's all the counts.
It seems you're right, which means you don't have a point at all as nothing prevents students from defending themselves now.
So explain, what law am I breaking by shooting someone who is pointing a Taser at me? Nothing in chapter 9 of the Penal Code jumps out at me. Maybe you can point me in the right direction. And don't act like lawyers don't try to find technicalities in an officer's narrative to get a clearly guilty defendant off the hook.
Well then you would be wrong, as has been pointed out to you numerous times in this thread. You don't need a gun for self-defense. Of course, there are situations in which having a gun would be superior than the alternatives. The question then becomes, does the good of having a gun in those situations outweigh the harm of allowing guns on campus? We're back to the safety issue, which is really what all of this comes down to, not self-defense.
nothing has been pointed out. The only people who have been wrong about anything in this thread are people arguing against me. But only 2 have had the stones to admit it. I am sure it might be safer for everyone to stay locked up in their homes (ala I, Robot) but that destroys rights. Nothing proves CHL's increase gun accidents. Also WTF is this about? make up your mind.
CaseyH- Do you know what "alternative" means? Do you really want to argue that guns are essential to self-defense?
