Texas allows guns in college classrooms under new law

[primalmatter]

Self harm is violence. It's already been defined. You cannot ignore an entire bloc of firearm deaths because it doesn't hold your own definition of what firearm violence is. It hurts your narrative because suicide by firearm is the most prevalent in the US.

So what exactly is the difference between shooting yourself in the head or jumping off a building?

It's suicide... it can technically be considered gun violence but it seems like you are just trying to inflate the numbers when you add it to your argument.

[Stormdash]

And theft of firearms would decrease when 300+ million firearms were in circulation? Who do you figure the founding fathers were? Wayne Lapierre?

Crime isn't a medical problem? Behavioral aspects of crime and poverty is something that should be left up to the states? Kind of like the Zika virus?

If you have decided man has no moral agency, while perverse, I suppose that would make sense.

[Hammerfest]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Nothing wrong with law-abiding citizens arming themselves.

[Daelak]

Didn't say it wasn't violence. Saying it can't be lumped into YOUR narrative either. It was not perpetrated from one person to another.

Of course it can be lumped in to my "narrative" of saying that suicide by firearm is firearm violence. There's no agenda there.

- - - Updated - - -

So what exactly is the difference between shooting yourself in the head or jumping off a building?

It's suicide... it can technically be considered gun violence but it seems like you are just trying to inflate the numbers when you add it to your argument.

There's nothing technical about it, using a firearm to kill yourself is firearm violence, and suicide by firearm is the most prevalent way of suicide in the US.

[MasterOfNone]

So what exactly is the difference between shooting yourself in the head or jumping off a building?

It's suicide... it can technically be considered gun violence but it seems like you are just trying to inflate the numbers when you add it to your argument.

Agree and disagree. Agree that they use suicide numbers to push their narrative. Disagree that the common understanding of the phrase "firearm violence" includes suicides. It's never looked at that way from what I can tell. It always has to be brought up as a side note to firearm related deaths from the left that "well look at how many people died from suicide." No one is thinking about the suicide statistic when you see mass shootings.

[Unkempt]

I'm not advocating, it's the truth. Pro-gun rights advocates don't lump suicides by firearms as a legitimate metric of firearm violence, because it doesn't help their narrative that firearms should be plentiful in circulation and access.

To be fair though, many of the anti-gun advocates also use the numbers with suicides in to promote an inaccurate view of firearm crime, so it's both sides that misuse those stats depending on the narrative.

[Daelak]

If you have decided man has no moral agency, while perverse, I suppose that would make sense.

Do you think criminals commit non-violent crimes out of not knowing the difference between right and wrong?

[MasterOfNone]

Of course it can be lumped in to my "narrative" of saying that suicide by firearm is firearm violence. There's no agenda there.

- - - Updated - - -



There's nothing technical about it, using a firearm to kill yourself is firearm violence, and suicide by firearm is the most prevalent way of suicide in the US.

You CAN lump it together, it just makes you a hypocrite. You can say "ban guns because x people die each year from them including suicides." It doesn't change the fact that your numbers you are using for your narrative include people who are mentally unstable and are likely to kill themselves with other means due to their condition. You are using it to push an agenda.

[Daelak]

To be fair though, many of the anti-gun advocates also use the numbers with suicides in to promote an inaccurate view of firearm crime, so it's both sides that misuse those stats depending on the narrative.

It's not firearm crime; it's firearm violence. There is no narrative when from the perspective of studying firearm violence, the narrative comes from interests that don't want there to be a comprehensive look at firearm violence.

[Yvaelle]

I feel a lot safer under the assumption that no one I meet here is carrying a gun.

^ Not to mention, "Hey! That dudes got a gun!" here means, "WTF shooter - scatter/attack!" - whereas in the US, I suspect, "Hey, that dude's got a gun!" is at best a Captain Obvious moment - right up until the first victims head explodes.

[Nihilist74]

I can imagine some texas mom packing a glock in there kids metal star wars lunch box.

[Daelak]

You CAN lump it together, it just makes you a hypocrite. You can say "ban guns because x people die each year from them including suicides." It doesn't change the fact that your numbers you are using for your narrative include people who are mentally unstable and are likely to kill themselves with other means due to their condition. You are using it to push an agenda.

It isn't an agenda, unless you think there is a conspiracy amongst dictionary producers and linguists. Firearm violence is firearm violence, self harm or harming another person is irrelevant. The whole line of reasoning you are using was produced by interests that don't want to see comprehensive study into firearm violence.

[Yvaelle]

I can imagine some texas mom packing a glock in there kids metal star wars lunch box.

Absurd! If there is a shooter little Timmy would never get to it in time, I propose we equip our guns with pencils on the base - so that they are ever vigilant - always at hand.

[MasterOfNone]

It isn't an agenda, unless you think there is a conspiracy amongst dictionary producers and linguists. Firearm violence is firearm violence, self harm or harming another person is irrelevant. The whole line of reasoning you are using was produced by interests that don't want to see comprehensive study into firearm violence.

Bullshit. Never did I say that there shouldn't be comprehensive studies on firearm violence. Also, you are failing to understand the original point. Self harm is extremely relevant. If not one person was killed by firearms in the world and the only people that died were from suicide by gun, would you still fault the gun? Firearm violence wouldn't even be a talked about situation. So your whole "not relevant" goes right out the window. You can't have it both ways dude.

[Blade Wolf]

Cmon what could possibly go wrong? We all know americans have the aim of fucking Dirty Harry...

[primalmatter]

Cmon what could possibly go wrong? We all know americans have the aim of fucking Dirty Harry...

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?

[Daelak]

Bullshit. Never did I say that there shouldn't be comprehensive studies on firearm violence. Also, you are failing to understand the original point. Self harm is extremely relevant. If not one person was killed by firearms in the world and the only people that died were from suicide by gun, would you still fault the gun? Firearm violence wouldn't even be a talked about situation. So your whole "not relevant" goes right out the window. You can't have it both ways dude.

Of course, because it is the most lethal and irreversible course of action to ending your own life or others. This is why firearm suicides are so prevalent in the US. People who survive suicide attempts overwhelmingly agree that it's an extreme manic depressive episode, and that they are glad they did not die.

[shadowmouse]

I highly doubt anything of significance will happen.

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.

And this law does not invite people to do so. It simply makes it legal to do so if they choose.

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.

How do side-arms prevent open discussion?

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."]

And in a world where people will do anything to kill innocent civilians (See recent European attacks) I think the risk is worth the reward.

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.

[TwoNineMarine]

Because the shooter will just plan ahead and make more strategic use of cover?????? This isn't some hypothetical. We just talked about them failing to so stop the guy in the tower before the police took care of it.

It's not failing if their rounds prevented him from taking cover and shooting as much as he wanted. If they keep him suppressed until law enforcement arrives then I'd certainly say that they helped prevent a mass shooting. Or at least a worse mass shooting.

- - - Updated - - -

Absurd! If there is a shooter little Timmy would never get to it in time, I propose we equip our guns with pencils on the base - so that they are ever vigilant - always at hand.

Shame shame. Shame shame. Shame shame.

As a Moderator you certainly are being very intellectually dishonest.

It's almost like the thread is about COLLEGE students and not elementary students. Weird.

[MasterOfNone]

Of course, because it is the most lethal and irreversible course of action to ending your own life or others. This is why firearm suicides are so prevalent in the US. People who survive suicide attempts overwhelmingly agree that it's an extreme manic depressive episode, and that they are glad they did not die.

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.