CHL holders do tend to the mindset of protecting good people from bad. It tends to be how they wired.

1. If you are a PUBLIC institution then Austin makes your policy. Private schools would not have to allow CC because they are PRIVATE.

2.Remember, There is no LAW yet.

3. The 18 Y/O can't even get a CHL making him irrelevant to this discussion.

4. If you are a supporter of the 2ND which includes, as we all know "....To keep and bear arms...." Why do you make a distinction regarding colleges? Colleges are public places just like grocery stores and hospitals.

Brewer:

Am I wrong that the proposed law forces public universities to allow students who hold a CHL to carry them to class? To have them in their dorm rooms?

I disagree completely with this law, and thank God I teach at a private university and will not, as I understand, be forced to allow drunken, immature, volitile, depressed, pistol-packing kids on my campus...at least legally speaking.

We disagree here. You want students to have access to dangerous weapons in class, on campus, and in their dorms. I think this is nuts. Do we really want some gang-banger who has avoided arrest to have a glock in his dorm room?

Do we really want some jock named "Biff" who has an IQ of 95, is from some pamperd suburb, is fired up on booze, coke, steroids, and desire to look cool to his buddies to have a Cold Combat Commander under the mattress under his bed in a public university dorm?

And as I noted, just about anyone with a clean record and the IQ of a turnip can get a CHL. It is not, despite current rhetoric, some sort of Rambo traning course....an orientation.

How hard can it be to get a CHL?

1) Have a clean criminal record.

2) Fill out some paper work.

3) Have a wee bit of cash.

4) Go to a short orientation class.

Finally you take these completed forms back, pay a fee, and some months later you get a permit to buy one (1) handgun. To get another, or a third, or more handguns, you must repeat the permit process.

When I discovered the sordid details of what was involved, I was filled with a sense of despair. What's happened to the 2nd amendment to the Constitution? I have a right to bear arms, dammit! The burden of complying with the onerous permit process is...simply too great.

Brewer, the main argument is CHL is a supplement to law enforcement.

• carygold Said:

I don't think that's true either.

No one that I know has ever pursued a CHL to supplement anything other than their well being and peace of mind.

• pup Said:

I wasn't talking about why people get a CHL.

I was talking about why people want to open up campus's to handguns. The primary reason is to stop the next nut job, in essence using citizen CHL's as a supplemental law enforcement.

Self preservation may be okay and with little chance for human error, but when a CHL is shooting to protect someone else the equation changes, that equation is what law enforcement trains for continuously, its the reason civilian silhouettes are put in with bad guy silhouettes on a training course.

Never said it was comparable to Ranger school. But I do know people who have completed the training and their entire outlook on carrying a weapon is completely different than before training.

True, but the entire write up is interesting. And my point remains ... the Texas CHL course is no short orientation class, from what I understand.

rw:

That is the perfectly rational position to take.

My problem is that public universities will be forced to allow CHL on campus, and particularly the dorms.

A university has a management team. I do believe, and correct me if I am wrong, that the UT system is not keen on being forced to allow this.

My basic position is that it is nuts to allow handguns in dormitories, and unwise to have armed students packing heat; particularly as that population is plagued with lots undiagnosed emotional problems. Correct me if the law does not allow handguns on campus...I thought that was the entire point.

Brewer and I clearly disagree. On the other hand, I probably agree a lot more with many of the more moderate conservatives here than they might suspect.

Ranger school? Damned if I can remember, that was back in 1979--remember breaking ice, though, and thinking that they were nuts with all the rocks below us on the log you walk over to do the rope crawl and drop, though--still remember a little bandy Ranger captain who was certifiable.

Can't remember my Air Assault class number either, though I do remember my roster number #45! I remember my Jump School roster number, C172. And can only remember the class number because I still have my little jump school yearbook,,Class #36-1979. Dont remember my IOBC class number or my IOAC class number.....damned "Old Timers" getting to me.

We should compare gun violence in Canada verses the US. Tighter gun control has proven extremely effective in Canada and they still hunt as much as we do.

• MissingChico Said:

The last seminar I attended said that Canada has 3 times less violemnt crime than the US. Which means we are 3 times more likely to need to defend ourselves.

thanks for making my point for me.

So, you take from this the message that more guns are what will reduce out 3x higher gun violence problem? I take this as meaning we need to more stringently regulate the guns in circulation in the US. Clearly there is no good reason for literally the equivalent of 20 guns per person in the US. I say we get rid of the loopholes that allow criminals and the mentally unstable to get guns. This flood of weaponry in the US makes it so easy for the unstable to obtain.


A more prescient statistic would be to find how many more or less CHL'ers, home owners, car jack victims that were carrying guns went ape$hit and killed a bunch of people in a mall..... you won't find that statistic because it doesn't exist. People followed your logic years ago and decided that making alcohol illegal would make violence go away.... saw how that worked out....

You don't find statistics related to this kind of meaningless violence outside the US because this is primarily a US thing. Granted, violence does occur around the globe, but no other first world, industrialized society holds a candle to the level seen in the US.

Alcohol doesn't kill people any more than guns do Good guys get to carry guns and defend themselves because bad guys carry guns and try to hurt people. I can't understand why anti-gunners think that getting rid of the problem (people's choice to commit a violent crime) is LESS important than getting rid of the tool they use. If one is going to follow this ridiculous logic, then knives, clubs, cars, glass bottles, etc. must be banned.....THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

Instead lets focus on the problem at hand which is why violent criminals are more prevalent here. Race issues? Poverty issues? Social issues? Some of all of those, I suspect....and more.

I can't agree with you more here, but you are speaking of social issues and social programs to help those who are poor, in need of mental health care, etc. These are the very things the "pro-gunners" typically hate. This idea that some people are poor or disenfranchised because they are lazy or don't try hard enough is poison. I agree these things must be addressed, but you bringing it up gives me more respect for where you are coming from. You're not sounding like the seemingly racist tea partier type who blames the poor, weak and brown for our social downfalls.

I feel like people focus on guns because they're an intellectually "easy out". Why deal with race relations that are infinitely difficult when one can put a band-aid on it by attacking guns?

You make an excellent point here. Guns aren't the only problem, however in the wrong hands, they become a catastrophe. Rather than having shootouts between the good guys and the bad guys, I'd rather see it a bit more difficult to arm those who shouldn't possess a weapon in the first place. The radical fight both for and against guns is rooted in the fact you NRA'ers fear the slightest bit of meaningful regulation as an afront to your constitutional rights. Eliminating the gun show loopholes would be tantamount to a ban on all weapons. This is what's truly ridiculous. It's this unwillingness to put even the slightest hurdle between a criminal and a gun that has caused so many lost lives both in the US and Mexico. I'm not an anti-gunner, I am a person who does not have a problem with registering a weapon and having a background check associated with the purchase as well.

As far as Canada? thanks for making another point for me. The Candaian anti-gunners have been trying for almost a century to impose gun control on its citizens and have failed miserably. Google "Canada Long Gun Registry" and read how the uber liberal PM Cretien (sp?) tried to force Canada's citizens to register and or turn in all long guns....and ended up failing miserably only after costing its citizens just under $5 billion. Socialism DOES work!

So in your view, Canada is "Socialist" simply because they have a government funded health care system? Canada is a democracy with a constitution representing the people equally or better than ours. Canada is a society with far less propensity for violence for whatever reason. There is a reason the US is singly the most violent of all first world industrialized societies. Banning rifles is a bit extreme, however registering them I don't believe violates and part of the constitution.

I don't have a problem with anti-gunners. I have a problem with people wanting to force other people to forfeit their Constitutional right because of an emotion. And that goes for both pro and anti-gunners.

I'll agree it's an emotional issue on both sides. My opinion is the NRA has put out so much paranoid anti-government propaganda that many gun owners get freaked out at the mere mention of regulation. It's ALWAYS some conspiracy to take away your weapons. The NRA makes an a$$load of money feeding this paranoia. The huge spikes in military grade weaponry sales whenever a Democrat wins the presidency is a clear example of it. I get those emails in my trash from the NRA telling me Obama is secretly going after my weapons too. And yes, I would support a ban on automatic, military weapons in the hands of the public, it's beyond any stretch to believe our founding fathers would be for such things.

If you want to get rid of guns, knives, or alcohol....fine. Prove it would work. Prove that getting guns off (or on) the street makes a difference. Otherwise, leave everyone alone.

I think Canada has already proven this for you. They regulate guns thoroughly. They allow citizens to have weaponry for hunting and personal safety, however it is far more difficult to illegally obtain a weapon, in turn Canada has a small fraction of the gun violence we experience.

Last point. I want to make sure that everyone realizes that talking via a forum thread about hot button issues makes it appear that people may be taking things more seriously than they are in reality while sitting on their couch watching TV and typing on Allen Online.

Rest assured, I am not typing this response in my boxers while watching Oprah, although my office does have a television if necessary. Lastly, with 15 years of law enforcement background, I've experienced enough, seen enough to stand by every word I've typed. This whole gun issue in my opinion is a symptom of a deep rooted paranoia, be it anti-government, anti-white minority, anti-boogyman. We simply live in this paranoid bubble that seems to affect our ability to coexist with our fellow countrymen and worse, the rest of the world. I've experienced other societies with genuine respect for all humans and it's incredibly refreshing. Look at Japan for one example. Imagine a disaster of that magnitude happening here. It's not too difficult to imagine the need for martial law here. Japan has had nearly zero violence, looting, or any other social issue as a result of their entire country shutting down after a disaster. That's the kind of social order I would prefer to see. And don't call the Japanese a bunch of pu$$#3$, because when provoked, they will protect what is there's.

Texting, typing on forums, etc leaves a lot of emtional nuances out and opens the door for mis-interpretation.

So, please don't take any of this too personally.