Texas allows guns in college classrooms under new law

[Blade Wolf]

What could honestly go wrong?

Do you really think a mass shooting can be prevented by saying "no guns allowed?"

Just who exactly benefits from restricting weapons?

A shooter attacks a classroom with kids who have guns. How many will be caught in crossfire or does every kid in that classroom have perfect aim?

[TwoNineMarine]

Then there is no need for the guns to be there. Sadly, the pattern in these matters seems to be that nobody expected something to happen, and then one day it did.



Nice job of selective reading. I rather clearly (and in the language you quoted) said that "This law comes close to doing just that." Note that word "close". It does not literally invite people to carry, but it takes a clear rule -- no guns -- and carves out an exception where no exception need be. In doing so, it feeds an atmosphere of fear.



Because, some people without guns are assholes. Give them a gun and they are now an asshole with a gun. Not everyone is comfortable arguing with an angry asshole with a gun. We already have enough trouble in classrooms with assholes carrying phones so they can upload clips. Thanks, but I'll pass on having something else to give students an excuse for clamming up and playing phone games under their desk. You see, the "fear" doesn't even have to be real (note, however, that it was commented on by a student in the article), it just has to be a plausible argument and my ability to get discussion in the classroom has been set back. [In the article: "At the University of Texas Austin campus, third-year student Courtney Dang said the idea of campus carry was scary. ... "There are so many students battling the stress of campus. Some are unstable and we don't know who has a gun," said Dang."]



I'll assume that you served on active duty, I can't recall. I did, and I've been around a bunch of teenagers who weren't real sure about how to handle live ammo. The NRA sell is the idea that a good guy with a gun will go all Clint Eastwood and save the day. That overlooks things like the young and dumb element. Even now, we're starting to hear that law enforcement is having to be careful because when things go wrong, they have to sort out who might be a bad guy with a gun and who might be trying to be a good guy.

Guns that are not in a classroom are not getting accidentally discharged, they are not interpreted as a threat, and there is no friendly fire danger. They aren't needed.

I would agree that no guns should NEED to be there. But we don't live in a magical world where violence and terrible people don't exist. You have to understand that. Bad people will use any means necessary to inflict the harm they want to cause.

It doesn't feed into an atmosphere of fear. Only to those who can't stand the thought of people taking it upon themselves to protect them and others. If the school isn't going to provide that protection then someone needs to. Shitty things are going to happen. Look at literally all the attacks recently. Innocent men, women, and children all murdered in a variety of ways.

It's not giving them a gun. They still have to go through the process of applying for and getting a gun. My guess is now that they can suddenly carry at school doesn't mean they will finally decide they want a weapon. For the vast majority they already had a legally owned weapon and will now simply be able to carry it with them at school. Dang's point is irrelevant. Like completely. You ALREADY didn't know who had a gun before. This changes nothing.

I was active duty yes. And I've stated plenty of times in other threads (which I know you may not have read) that I am a big advocate of training kids on the safe use and handling of firearms.

Our definition of need is different. I feel the NEED to protect our students surmounts any AD that may or may not happen. If people are "afraid" of weapons then tell them to quit being pussies. People today are afraid of their own fucking shadow. It's pathetic. If the schools would pony up the funds to pay legitimate armed security to protect the campus I could perhaps agree there is no need. But they don't. Like anywhere. Some colleges have full on Campus Police but not the vast majority.

[primalmatter]

A shooter attacks a classroom with kids who have guns. How many will be caught in crossfire or does every kid in that classroom have perfect aim?

Doesn't everyone die in the scenario where only the attacker is armed?

Again you have to show the harm... That seems like a better situation then the alternative.

[TwoNineMarine]

A shooter attacks a classroom with kids who have guns. How many will be caught in crossfire or does every kid in that classroom have perfect aim?

Generally you hear the gun fire before he gets to your room. What should happen is those with weapons prepare themselves for if the bad guy enters the room. The rest of the students get to the back of it and stay low and out of the way.

Frankly there should be training in our schools for situations like that.

- - - Updated - - -

Doesn't everyone die in the scenario where only the attacker is armed?

Again you have to show the harm... That seems like a better situation then the alternative.

Also this.

Gunman VS Totally Unarmed Students = All students die

Gunman VS Armed Students = Not all students die

Have you ever noticed how none of these attacks ever happen in places where people could legally be carrying? It's always in a place where people are most venerable.

[Daelak]

As opposed to jumping off a cliff or large building? Not every state has deep gorges and skyscrapers that are accessible compared to a firearm. Just because it's easy to use and convenient does not mean removing them will ultimately fix their condition.

That's exactly what studying the behavior of people who contemplate and survive suicide attempts are saying. You remove the easy access to firearms and you will have a precipitous drop in people killing themselves when in a deep manic depressive episode.

[Kathandira]

A shooter attacks a classroom with kids who have guns. How many will be caught in crossfire or does every kid in that classroom have perfect aim?

I have two images in my mind.

1: A bunch of people in class have a gun. Shooter enters, Some pull out their guns, and start shooting. Innocent people are hit in the cross fire.

2: A bunch of people in class have a gun. Shooter enters, everyone runs/hides.

Having a gun on you doesn't make you an action hero. It doesn't give you instant bravery. But for some, it might. But the thing about this is, Colleges aren't exactly known for mass shootings. They have happened, but not so much so that there is a concern. So, with that in mind, I really don't see there being an issue here. The only shooting I can see occurring, would be student vs student over some dumb shit like a girl, or money, or drugs.

[TwoNineMarine]

That's exactly what studying the behavior of people who contemplate and survive suicide attempts are saying. You remove the easy access to firearms and you will have a precipitous drop in people killing themselves when in a deep manic depressive episode.

So are you saying that in a place like Japan, that is third in the world in suicide rate, if you gave them weapons, suddenly that number would skyrocket?

[Daelak]

So are you saying that in a place like Japan, that is third in the world in suicide rate, if you gave them weapons, suddenly that number would skyrocket?

Yes, give them the conditions similar to those in the US in terms of accessibility, then you would see an increase in firearm suicides.

[TwoNineMarine]

Shooting as much as he wants doesn't do much good if they just retreat to buildings and don't give him anything to shoot at.

What if the shooter enters the building? There's only so much hiding you can do before the shooter finds you.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, give them the conditions similar to those in the US in terms of accessibility, then you would see an increase in firearm suicides.

That wasn't what I was asking and you know it. So let me make it clear:

Would you see an increase in their general suicide rate? Or would people just shift to a gun instead of OD or jumping off of stuff.

[Daelak]

What if the shooter enters the building? There's only so much hiding you can do before the shooter finds you.

- - - Updated - - -



That wasn't what I was asking and you know it. So let me make it clear:

Would you see an increase in their general suicide rate? Or would people just shift to a gun instead of OD or jumping off of stuff.

They would shift to firearms, just like in the US

[TwoNineMarine]

If the shooter left the tower, then he's vulnerable to the police who were already on the scene.

In that scenario perhaps. But I'm branching out into other possible situations.

If gun carrying students can keep a shooter isolated until the police show up is that not better than letting him or her roam free?

[primalmatter]

That's exactly what studying the behavior of people who contemplate and survive suicide attempts are saying. You remove the easy access to firearms and you will have a precipitous drop in people killing themselves when in a deep manic depressive episode.

I think they would just find another way to die to be honest.

[MasterOfNone]

That's exactly what studying the behavior of people who contemplate and survive suicide attempts are saying. You remove the easy access to firearms and you will have a precipitous drop in people killing themselves when in a deep manic depressive episode.

That is not a fact. At all. That is a presumption. To achieve such would require total gun removal which does not benefit the populous. Now if you were to say stricter regulation, then we could find middle ground. However, as in most cases of extremes, people want to push a knee jerk reaction to complete gun removal. Rarely are complex issues like this solved by means of a complete 180 in policy. The problem needs to be fully understood and agreed upon before you can have the "precipitous drop". As it stands now, the problem is not understood and agreed upon yet you have millions arm chair philosophers with the "solution".

[TwoNineMarine]

They would shift to firearms, just like in the US

So what do guns have to do with it? If the rate wouldn't go up because of the accessibility to firearms then what does the accessibility to firearms matter? Your argument all along has said that firearms increase the rate of suicides and if we removed guns we wouldn't have so many suicides.

By your logic if the guns in the US were to disappear one day wouldn't the 20k suicide deaths a year by gun in the US just shift to another method?

[Daelak]

I think they would just find another way to die to be honest.

There's nothing as quick and easy before you or someone would interject, pushing out out of your manic episode.

[primalmatter]

Shooting as much as he wants doesn't do much good if they just retreat to buildings and don't give him anything to shoot at.

I don't think you understand how crowds and one or limited exits work.

You also are aware people with guns are mobile right?

[TwoNineMarine]

For as likely as it is that I'll encounter a shooter on campus, you may as well argue it's just a rational precaution against the zombie apocalypse. That's to say nothing of the fact that universities have their own police departments these days, so help is on the scene basically from the start.

Most don't though. They tend to have security but those are generally unarmed.

And since when is it such a problem to have people being proactive about something? They are preparing for the possibility of something happening and taking steps to ease the situation down if and when it happens.

[Daelak]

That is not a fact. At all. That is a presumption. To achieve such would require total gun removal which does not benefit the populous. Now if you were to say stricter regulation, then we could find middle ground. However, as in most cases of extremes, people want to push a knee jerk reaction to complete gun removal. Rarely are complex issues like this solved by means of a complete 180 in policy. The problem needs to be fully understood and agreed upon before you can have the "precipitous drop". As it stands now, the problem is not understood and agreed upon yet you have millions arm chair philosophers with the "solution".

If you made access to firearms harder, there would be less firearm suicides. This isn't complex. This is the reason why firearm suicides are the most prevalent; because they are easily accessible and are the most lethal. If you made it harder to find one, you save thousands of lives, because manic episodes don't last long.

[primalmatter]

There's nothing as quick and easy before you or someone would interject, pushing out out of your manic episode.

Jumping off a building... attaching a has mask to a propane tank... downing a bottle of sleeping pills.

There are a bunch of easy and painless ways.

- - - Updated - - -

Unless you're saying that clock tower is actually a Decepticon, I don't think mobility is a real concern in that situation.

I really do not understand what you are trying to say with this metaphor.

[TwoNineMarine]

If you made access to firearms harder, there would be less firearm suicides. This isn't complex. This is the reason why firearm suicides are the most prevalent; because they are easily accessible and are the most lethal. If you made it harder to find one, you save thousands of lives, because manic episodes don't last long.

Answer my question.

Always interesting how you suddenly don't respond to me when I completely bash your argument.

Here I'll post again so you don't miss it:

So what do guns have to do with it? If the rate wouldn't go up because of the accessibility to firearms then what does the accessibility to firearms matter? Your argument all along has said that firearms increase the rate of suicides and if we removed guns we wouldn't have so many suicides.

By your logic if the guns in the US were to disappear one day wouldn't the 20k suicide deaths a year by gun in the US just shift to another method?

- - - Updated - - -

Unless you're saying that clock tower is actually a Decepticon, I don't think mobility is a real concern in that situation.

Huh? A gunman moving from building to building unimpeded is a big concern. What reality are you living in?