It could, but it wouldn't take long before you started encountering scenarios that interfere with other people's liberties, lives, etc. Allowing somebody who's licensed to carry to carry someplace that is completely arbitrarily defined with respect to the rest of our society where carry is otherwise permitted doesn't affect the life or liberties of those around him the least bit.

If this is the official justification for this legislation, can I assume that Texas will also be legalizing gay marriage?

If that was the topic of the thread, I'd be in here making the exact same argument. But it's not, so what is your purpose? To take advantage of an opportunity to call people hypocrites?

NOPE! Because quite frankly they don't have to be that rational!

I really don't care about any of this. It'll get forced on them, whether there are good reasons or not, and statistically it will result in exactly 0 accidental deaths and 0 stopped shootings. Bo-****ing-ring.

The real reason I'm posting is because JLee's argument is bad. I say bad, meaning in an empirical, mathematical sense. If you assume a false proposition you can prove any result. The converse is true as well. I have a strong interest in propositional calculus, and epistemology in general, so I enjoy posting about it.

It's worth saying, however, that an important part of living in a democracy as a mature adult is learning to live with the decisions of the majority of people. Sometimes that means ending the apartheid, sometimes that means banning gay marriage, and sometimes that means accepting that an entire campus full of college students believes you are not able to competently or responsibly operate a firearm.
Another important part of living in a democracy as a mature adult is learning that not every attempt at debate is a petty snipe.

The American Say's...

First off guns are awesome. Ive fired a gun, I've owned guns and they are fun IF they are used in the proper way. IE DONT SHOOT HUMANS

This though that everyone carrying a gun would be safer is ludacris. How in the hell do you expect to have less gun violence with more guns?

Additionally, what happened when the stupid have a gun go off in their leg? If there were a situation that arose which called for firearms, how many of your college peers would you entrust with that responsibility. I do not think that blond girl is a ****ing sharp-shooter. The casualties could be catastrophic. This is crazy. ****ing Texas...

You really do have no concept of lighthearted / offhand / sarcastic / joke / etc, do you?

Nope, everything is srs business.

You're sad.

He's a computer he is still learning the ways of humans

Fixed?

No.

Um?

Well considering that conceal carry has always been legal in the US, and that that has, AFIK, NEVER happened, probably quite a while. It's pretty pointless to speculate about the dynamics of a situation like that if you've never been in one.

That's actually probably true. Anyone who does not want guns on campus or does not know how to use one properly will likely not carry one. And anyone who wants to pull off a school shooting will still find a way to do it.

I believe he was referring to legal carry, not legally purchased.

It has sorta happened: http://www.wbaltv.com/r/26427374/detail.html

It didn't start with a shootout, but otherwise fits that scenario.

I think everyone everywhere should carry around guns for when the aliens invade.

This.

This is quibbling. Texas is a shall-issue state, and (as best as I can tell) the disqualifying conditions are the same as firearm purchase. The only reason Seung-Hui Cho didn't have a license is because he didn't apply for one.

This is perhaps a valid point, but buying a firearm is an extremely important part of shooting something, whereas attending a class, getting a thorough background check, getting detailed information including fingerprints entered into the system, paying a fee, and waiting for your license to come in is entirely unnecessary since you can just walk in anywhere and shoot somebody without any of that.

You're a smart guy - I have a hard time believing you're failing to see the point. Very rarely (I can't recall any incidents offhand) do you see someone licensed to carry go on a shooting spree. It's not the people carrying legally that should be of concern.

I understand you completely. Your argument is false because it is based on a false premise.

Correlation does not imply causation.

I agree there is a negative correlation between criminal behavior and legal gun possession (this is almost tautological.) However, the causal factor is clearly (especially in the case of Seung-Hui Cho) a simple matter of convenience rather than anything substantial.



As for your 'actual' point, because draining your arguments with logic isn't enough: I have no intention of getting into the same debate with you again, but a quick Google search revealed a list of gun crimes committed by people with concealed carry permits (current as of Nov 2009.)

http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/facts/ccw-crimes-misdeeds.pdf

I have no idea if this list is accurate. Frankly, I don't care. But if it is, the list is about infinity times longer than what you think it is.

Fantastic.

hrmmm... now that is a very interesting list. i know you said you dont care if its accurate, but i would like to, for everyone else, point out that the 35 page list only contains 79 incidences of permited weapons being fired into or even in the direction of another person by the registered owner. the list was started in early 1996. 79 in 15 years... and yes. i took the time to read EVERY entry on that list.

I skimmed that list last night and was honestly struck by how FEW of those were serious. Maybe serious isn't the right word, many of them were serious, but most of them were not the kind of thing we're talking about here. I saw a large proportion of crimes relating to people with concealed carry getting busted on not carrying correctly, and even most of the ones involving actual anger were mostly posturing. Not that that makes any of it okay, I'm just saying that if you compare that list's serious homicidal intent crimes with the general population, I think JLee's point carries some weight.

Like I said though, I just skimmed it, I'd be interested to go through the entire list and classify each one to get actual rates.

I was typing mine up before you posted yours.

No it doesn't.

You can't compare the severity and number of offenses in the way you and Darth_Alran are talking about. You need to estimate population parameters and base your comparison on those statistics. Both of you need to do a lot more work if you want to prove that JLee's "point carries some weight."

It still doesn't, by the way. Even if you don't see why his argument is fundamentally flawed, the fact that all people are capable of committing crimes makes me worried about the "legal" kind of guns, too.

I guess I should have been more careful in my wording: I mean that it COULD carry some weight, of course I admit that you'd have to carefully study the numbers (and I'm sure you've figured out that I am not a statistics expert) but I see enough evidence that, like I said, I think it would be worth looking into.

Just because someone is capable of committing a crime doesn't mean we need to remove that capability. Like you said, EVERYONE is capable of committing a crime. Not only that, but as I have said several times, these laws DO NOT limit anyone's ability to commit the crime in question. They're wishful thinking laws. Nothing about the law is enforceable, unless you're searching every single person that steps foot on campus, every time. The weapons are concealed.

While, with my knowledge of college kids, the idea of guns on a campus would make me nervous (any of the campuses I've been on anyway) it seems like the only practical purpose of an unenforceable law like this would be liability reasons. "We don't allow guns on campus. This person snuck it in against our rules, therefore you can't hold us responsible." At which point it should be left up to the schools to determine their own liability risks.

I totally understand the aversion to letting college kids have guns, but I think one of the things people need to remember is that at least this kids are in college....the law is still that you have to be 21 and licensed, and in the general population, there's nothing stopping any 21 year old guy in walmart or at the bowling alley from having a gun. If you don't feel afraid every time you go into walmart, why should a college class be any different?