Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Sunday August 07 2016, @09:33PM   Printer-friendly
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.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/08/01/campus-carry-goes-into-effect-as-texas-remembers-ut-tower-shootings-50-years-later.html


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @04:35PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @04:35PM (#385354)

    This is actually one thing I will never understand about those who stand on the side of strict gun bans. This constant, unwavering, unquestioned (and unsupported by any evidence), assertion that another firearm on the scene will always (I SAID ***ALWAYS***) make the situation worse. Oh, unless the other firearm is in the hands of a person wearing a badge and a uniform. Then it's totally cool.

    This attitude unfortunately blatantly ignores the fact that many of the people around you who bother to carry concealed firearms are not "crazy gun nuts" but are actually likely to fall into several other categories of people who are quite well-trained and unlikely to simply whip out an UZI and start "spraying the room with bullets" (a phrase that is used far too frequently among strict gun control advocates). They might be:

    - Former military
    - Active military on leave
    - Former law enforcement
    - Current, off-duty law enforcement
    - Or, simply private citizens who have taken the responsibility to train themselves just as well or better than any of the people in the above categories.

    What percentage of those skilled people do you think there are versus random people who got a gun because "they think it's cool?"

    I really don't have a number, but let's say for the sake of argument there are 40% people who are former military/former police/highly trained, 40% of people who are smart and responsible amateurs, and 20% idiots.

    Now an attack happens. Those 20% (say, 4 people in the crowd of 20 armed people) start shooting at random because they've been dreaming of being a hero for years and they finally have their chance. What happens next?

    Even if you assume a relatively low percentage of idiots, you can see the situation escalates poorly. This is mode more clear if you believe, like I do, that there are more idiots and fewer trained people than the numbers I sketched out.

    (Personally I happen to think that the costs of gun ownership outweighs the negatives of a crackdown... but I also do think that there is a cost to gun ownership which should not be ignored.)

  • (Score: 2) by RedBear on Tuesday August 09 2016, @04:59AM

    by RedBear (1734) on Tuesday August 09 2016, @04:59AM (#385634)

    What percentage of those skilled people do you think there are versus random people who got a gun because "they think it's cool?"
    I really don't have a number, but let's say for the sake of argument there are 40% people who are former military/former police/highly trained, 40% of people who are smart and responsible amateurs, and 20% idiots.
    Now an attack happens. Those 20% (say, 4 people in the crowd of 20 armed people) start shooting at random because they've been dreaming of being a hero for years and they finally have their chance. What happens next?
    Even if you assume a relatively low percentage of idiots, you can see the situation escalates poorly. This is mode more clear if you believe, like I do, that there are more idiots and fewer trained people than the numbers I sketched out.

    What you've just done is called "pulling numbers out of your ass to support a personal opinion". Even if I agree with you completely, and I'm not saying I don't, no intelligent discourse can follow from this kind of unsupported BS. I could only agree or disagree with your expressed personal opinion.

    I was only arguing against the common assertion that I see put forth that all (100%) of those in a room who happen to be carrying a personal weapon are automatically "idiots" simply because they chose to carry a personal weapon. It is a logical fallacy that this can be true, which was my entire point. How many of them are well-trained former military/LEOs? No idea, but it's not zero percent. It can't be. That was the point I was trying to make.

    I also disagree with the constant idea that even people with little training will *always* just start shooting "at random" and in random directions. This is another very hyperbolic idea that is far too frequently used by gun control fans. Like the "spraying the room with bullets" phrase I mentioned earlier. Phrases like this hurt the gun control conversation by making gun control advocates just sound like hyperbolic idiots who have little contact with reality. The hyperbole needs to be toned down or no progress can be made on gun control.

    --
    ¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
    ... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
    • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:05PM

      by vux984 (5045) on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:05PM (#385962)

      I was only arguing against the common assertion that I see put forth that all (100%) of those in a room who happen to be carrying a personal weapon are automatically "idiots" simply because they chose to carry a personal weapon.

      But I *didn't* assert that. I only asserted that there would be idiots in that group; not that 100% of them are idiots all the time.
      Further, almost nobody ever asserts that 100% of citizens carrying a gun in an 'incident' is a liability. As you say, its illogical. But at the same time, nobody is going to bother disclaiming that some percentage won't be a liability everytime they raise the issue of the 'idiots'.

      I also disagree with the constant idea that even people with little training will *always* just start shooting "at random" and in random directions.

      I remember the very first time I fired a hand gun, I took careful aim through the iron sight at the target at the firing range, squeezed the trigger as I'd been shown, and missed. another try another miss. The range staff observing me stepped in and advised me that I was shooting the floor; and corrected me. I literally was sighting through the rear sights and because I was pointing slightly down couldn't even see the front sight; and I didn't even realize it was missing. As I lifted the barrel and the front sight came into view and ... I felt like a complete idiot. Lesson learned. And I've come a long way since then. But it stuck with me... just how useless one could be without sufficient training.

      Some random idiot -- Do they know how to hold it properly so it won't move in their hand? Are they actually holding properly? Do they know how to sight properly? Are they sighting properly? How often have they practiced? Have they EVER practiced? After all, bullets aren't free. When was the last time they zeroed their sights? Have they ever used the sights properly? Have they ever been to a range? How good is their aim going to be if they are scared, semi-intoxicated, their heart pounding the adrenaline through their veins... will they wait until the sights are properly lined up...with they apply all their training? Will they even remember their training? Did they even HAVE any training? Have they ever shot at a moving or living target? Or will they just start pulling the trigger as soon as the barrel of the gun is in the right general direction?
      Are they assuming the same stance they used at the range or are they crouched behind a table shooting with one hand poking out?

      Are they going to be shooting "at random in random directions"? No...I'm sure they'll be trying to hit something... but they may as well be firing in random directions if they are poorly trained and running on fear and adrenaline.

      Is that everyone with a gun? Of course not. Nobody thinks that. But lots of those people are out there.