SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the protect-yourself-'cuz-no-one-else-will dept.
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
Concealed handgun license holders in Texas can carry their weapons into public university buildings, classrooms and dorms starting Monday, a day that also marks 50 years after the mass shooting at the University of Texas' landmark clock tower.
The campus-carry law pushed by Gov. Greg Abbott and the Republican legislative majority makes Texas one of a handful of states guaranteeing the right to carry concealed handguns on campus.
Texas has allowed concealed handguns in public for 20 years. Gun rights advocates consider it an important protection, given the constitutional right to bear arms, as well as a key self-defense measure in cases of campus violence, such as the 1966 UT shootings and the 2007 shootings at Virginia Tech.
Opponents of the law fear it will chill free speech on campus and lead to more campus suicide. The former dean of the University of Texas School of Architecture left for a position at the University of Pennsylvania because of his opposition to allowing guns on campus.
Officials told the Austin American-Statesman it was a coincidence that the law took effect 50 years to the day after the UT shooting. Marine-trained sniper Charles Whitman climbed to the observation deck of the 27-story clock tower in the heart of UT's flagship Austin campus, armed with rifles, pistols and a sawed-off shotgun on Aug. 1, 1966, killing 13 people and wounding more than 30 others before officers gunned him down.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday August 08 2016, @09:10AM
[...] if you are seen attempting to set off a bomb or identified in the aftermath as the bomber, armed citizens will try to stop you.
Do you know of an occasion when that has happened? It sounds improbable.
You seem to be describing an operation in which an attacker places a bomb somewhere, performs an activation procedure of some sort, then attempts to walk away before the explosion in the hope of remaining uninjured. I would think that in such an attack, the attacker would take care not to be seen setting up the bomb, and would disguise its nature. You seem to envisage , that could be interrupted by a good citizen. I imagine that a bomb could be detonated electronically with a timer or by radio control. Observers wouldn't see the attacker pressing a button or lighting a fuse. Your premises appear to be that (1) if the attacker can be caught in the act and interrupted, the attack can be foiled; (2) if the bomb explodes, the attacker can be captured brought to justice, and that firearms are helpful in getting the upper hand. It seems to me that such a bomber would take pains to be inconspicuous, so the opportunity for your scenarios to happen is tiny. Also, someone placing a bomb could also have firearms, or could respond unpredictably when looking into the barrel of a gun. For example, the attacker, outgunned and facing the prospect of serious criminal charges, might detonate the bomb immediately.
I have the impression that most bombs are dropped from aircraft. Car bombs and suicide vests are also common types of bombs. Your scenarios would be even less likely to prevent those attacks, in my estimation.
One example that was in the news recently was the bombing at a concert in Ansbach, Bavaria. Until the explosion, all people observed was a man wearing a back pack. He may have initiated the explosion by changing his posture.
http://whnt.com/2016/07/25/suicide-bomb-rocks-ansbach-germany-in-third-violent-attack-in-bavaria-in-days/ [whnt.com]
Bombings and mass shootings make for exciting news stories, but far more people are killed one at a time in suicides and homicides. I've heard that suicide attempts using a gun are more likely to result in death, as compared to other methods. I would assume, too, that those who survive may often suffer severe injury.
(Score: 2) by RedBear on Tuesday August 09 2016, @05:48AM
I agree. It's possible, but highly improbable. The point was only that an armed campus will not be any less safe from a shooter or bomber than an "unarmed" campus (which are never actually completely unarmed). Nor will it necessarily be more safe.
I just believe it's important to stand up and make a statement to counter people who imply that a disaster is happening when there is no actual disaster happening.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Tuesday August 09 2016, @10:39PM
I found some support for my statements regarding suicide. The public health people at another college seem convinced that lessened availability of guns could result in fewer suicides:
In 2010 in the U.S., 19,392 people committed suicide with guns, compared with 11,078 who were killed by others.
[...]
Suicide is the 10th-leading cause of death in the U.S.; in 2010, 38,364 people killed themselves. In more than half of these cases, they used firearms. [...] About 85 percent of suicide attempts with a firearm end in death. (Drug overdose, the most widely used method in suicide attempts, is fatal in less than 3 percent of cases.)
--https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-suicide-the-hidden-toll/ [harvard.edu]
The National Review (https://archive.is/PdjAy [archive.is]) offers the counterpoint that some countries where guns are rare nonetheless have high suicide rates. Without using the word seppuku they note that culture could be a factor.