CHL on campus

For one thing, there's more than 1.9 million in Houston city limits. The Messicans don't participate in the census.


On a serious note, have you looked up the demographics? What about the socio-economic make up? What about the number of run down neighborhoods in the city limits? The amount of drug trafficking in the area? The amount of police interdiction? There are many, many variables so don't try to make your statistics make it look like areas where gun control is heaviest is where the handgun crime is lower. You need to use your resources. Don't try to make my "gun free zone victim rich environment" look like it doesn't hold water. It does. Think V-Tech.






Perhaps the most powerful example that gun control does not equal crime control is the United States. Prior to the enactment of federal gun controls in 1968, guns could be bought virtually anywhere by any adult, but the national murder rate then was half what it is now.

In fact, evidence suggests that guns are an effective crime deterrent in the hands of legal owners.

A study published by the University of Chicago found that crime rates are lower when civilians are allowed to carry concealed weapons.

Murder rates in the District of Columbia and Chicago actually went up after each jurisdiction passed restrictive gun control laws.

Burglaries of occupied dwellings in the gun-free U.K. are much more frequent than in the United States.

It isn't even evident that gun control laws have reduced gun ownership in the United States. Despite more than 20,000 gun-control laws nationwide, firearms are present in about the same percentage of households today as in the 1960s.


Go google some stats and you will see. The statistics shows undeniable facts, yet cries for more gun control to continue. Why? And what lies behind this?

You take away an individual's ability (and thereby right) to defend himself against hostility by a criminal, and you also take away his ability (and right) to resist authority (government).

By taking that ability away, you embolden the criminal, lower his occupational risks, lower the cost of getting into the business, and you open the field of criminality to more participants.

If you make it easier, less costly, to become a doctor, then more people can and will become doctors. If you make it easier, less risky, to become a criminal, then more people will become criminals.

More criminals require more victims to support them, which means more crime. More crime results in the government calling for more gun control, which takes away more people's ability to defend themselves, which lowers the risks and costs of becoming a criminal, and you have not a symbiotic relationship, but a vicious cycle.

THe bottom line is that we trust CHLs to carry defensive handguns virtually everywhere else in the State; it’s time to say lives are just as valuable on university campuses as they are off campus.

 

Uhh....you think there aren't undercounted minorities in NYC as well, hispanic and otherwise? If not you are sorely, sorely, sorely mistaken.

Thank you for undercutting your own point. You are telling me (somewat improbably, given that NYC has FAR, FAR, FAR more of the previous factors that you cite than Houston, Texas) that other factors are the cause of gun violence rather than the presence of guns? You realize how this cuts both ways right?

YOu need to use your resources because you are doing the same thing.


Anyway let us look at V-tech - lax regulations and plentiful weapons allowed a person with a history of psychological problems to obtain weapons commit mass murder. Using your loose correlation definitions that is a pretty serious indictment.

But anyway does your anectodotal chain stop there? Is virginia tech shooting the exception or the rule? I went to a lot of college classes and several years of law school classes - in my estimation it was the exception

LOL - here you are - literally blowing hot and cold with the same breath.

Above you are telling me that socioeconomic factors are the cause of higher or lower rates of violence in NYC vs. Houston regardless of weapon laws.

Now you are making the blanket implication that less gun restrictions - FORTY YEARS AGO, prior to an absolute tidal wave of social and demographic changes - were the precursor to a safe society? Do you realize how silly that is?

I am going to stop right here. Your train is so far off the tracks of logical implication that I cannot continue. The engineer is pulling the emergency brake.

 

sorry I thought you were WWR.

My response is the same. You're telling me that more policing - not more citizen guns, can reduce crime.

If that is your answer then my response is let's have more policing (which college campuses have, and partially ofr which reason they have less crime.

 

What else would I expect you to say? You can't back up facts and then you bring the train analogy.

I'll go to my shower content now...because I can carry a gun ANYWHERE including a campus and you aren't making decisions in the 2009 legislative session.

Carry on.

 

And how many died in VA-Tech before the police could intervene? Not that their intervention even mattered.

 

No because that's idiotic and not what I'm saying. Of course people have a right to defend themselves. Are college students with .357's sitting in the middle of a philosophy seminar a necessary manifestation of this right? probably not. No more so than me denying you the right to keep an M-1 Abrams tank in your garage is usurping your right to self-defense.

If some go against you and some go against me - what is the point of using them at all? You are ignoring the ones that go against you in any event.

What I'm talking about the silly blanket statement by WWR that an unarmed populace is - by necessity full of targets and victims and prone to chaos and anarchy. When reality tells us that an unarmed populace, with proper policing, etc - can be quite safe, in this instance much safer than a more-armed populace. SO much for his blanket statement.

 

Of course YOU can. You are a law enforcement official. I feel better with more guys like you around.

We just disagree about college campuses. As I have said, I enjoy firing my Makarov, and look forward to being able to carry it (need to look at concealment devices - the Makarov is a little large to easily conceal). I just don't feel the need to do so on a college campus.

 

LOL - well I'll go to sleep content that you are patrolling the streets with your gun then Rambo, except for when you're in the shower, in which case I will cower in fear.

 

Well, maybe not exactly like him..

 

Well I see you want to point out my quote about killing someone for pointing a Taser at me. I see you missed the point as well.

Here is what you should have considered before you posted that: What if someone does knock an officer down (me for instance) with a Taser? My gun holster does not have biometric entry system and I really don't want to be shot with my own weapon.

Few things to ponder:
1. You should never point ANY type of weapon at a law enforcement officer, period.
2. If you do, you should not be surprised when you're getting shot by that officer.
3. An officer is justified in shooting someone in this situation.

 

I see you figured out how to post your own smilies - congrats!

Maybe you should have been a lot more clear than "I'll kill someone if they point a taser at me!"

As for your points:

1) I agree.
2) Agreed to a certain extent - I don't think your first instinct should be to shoot them. I'd hope they'd train you a little better than that.
3) Shooting someone and killing someone are completely different - I hope you can appreciate the difference. Shooting them, as a last resort, to incapacitate them I can see - shooting to kill is something entirely different.

In the end, your comment looks pretty bad when it sits up there alone. I quoted your entire post - you're the one that failed to explain any circumstances that would lead you to kill someone. The only thing that remains to be seen is how fast you can backpedal.

 

If a cop is shooting someone, it is far more likely than not that they are shooting to kill. This isn't the movies where you can shoot the weapon out of someone's hand (although speaking of movies, I loved in Copycat when they carry this idea to its logical conclusion).

 

Someone reported this term as offensive and I tend to agree. Make your points, but avoid derogatory terms, particularly when there are people from Mexico reading this board who probably find this offensive.

 

This is the fifth or sixth snyde things you have posted. I realize that God forbid that anybody abrogate your natural right to carry a gun anywhere you damned well please, but a well ordered society and such...

We actually agree on second amendment issues more than you might think. In fact, we have agreed in other threads on gun control issues.

By the way...try carrying a gun into any state buildings (not a court), tell the officers that you are doing so. See what happens to you. When I worked for the state in the late 1990s, I can assure you that the DPS would not have found acceptable any possession of a firearm in our offices (no courts within 10 miles).

 

Wow... racial slurs and plagiarism in the same post!