Texas Community Colleges Leery of Guns on Campus

[jpak]

http://www.kwtx.com/centraltexasvotes/localheadlines/Texas_Community_Colleges_Leery_of_Guns_on_Campus_116364769.html

Ed Leathers has a concealed handgun license, and he believes in Texas gun laws. But as the chief of police for Collin College in the northern suburbs of Dallas, he is convinced that campuses are the wrong place for concealed handguns.

“Our officers are trained to go immediately to the location of where shots are reported to be fired, and they’re trained not to ask any questions but stop the person who they identify with a weapon” — and that could include a student or teacher who is trying to take down a shooter, Leathers says. If officers were to come upon a scene with more than one armed person, they wouldn’t be able to tell the good guy from the bad.

Leathers and other community college officials across Texas oppose a bill that state Rep. Van Taylor, R-Plano, has filed that would allow licensed handgun owners to carry concealed weapons on campuses. While Taylor says his measure is meant to allow students to protect themselves, Leathers says it could put them in more danger. “There is a greater risk of more lives being lost if that bill passes,” he says. Other school officials say allowing guns on campus should be a local choice.

Lawmakers have filed several bills that would allow concealed handgun license holders to carry on college campuses. Although Taylor supports the broader measures, his bill would apply only to community colleges.

<more>

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MicaelS]

6. Take your Texas bashing elsewhere,

Texans on DU don't want to read it here. :mad:

[sharesunited]

7. You need to be more specific. Texas gun worshipers may not want to read my truth.

But it's like spinach. Something that's GOOD for you to ingest.

[MicaelS]

10. You sound

Just like one of the religious zealots who manage to get Alcohol Prohibition passed under the guise of saving people souls. And Alcohol Prohibition didn’t work, all it did was a create a new class of criminals. The same thing has happened for Drug Prohibition.

The thing about America you refuse to accept is that this country is based on the guaranteeing the rights of the individual, not the safety of the community. That is why the BOR was passed.

But, eventually the average American, whom you refer to so condescendingly, eventually sees through the lies and propaganda of Prohibitionists like you. Alcohol Prohibition was repealed. Cannabis Prohibition is being repealed. Gun Prohibitions have been and are continuing to be repealed.

Americans do not want to be saved from themselves by either Right wing religious zealots wanting so save their souls, or Left wing zealots wanting to save their bodies. You are on the losing end of history in this country.

[sharesunited]

11. You may as well come out in favor of child pornography as protected by the first amendment.

Look at the harm of the thing itself.

Then speak of CP as a failed ANTI effort because people want to be free.

[Straw Man]

15. Not that failed meme again...

C'mon, follow your little analogy through. Explain to us all how child pornography in the proper hands is actual a benefit to society because those who are trained in its use--you know, like the police and the military--can be trusted to wield its power appropriately.

Or stop flogging poor dead Flicka.

[sharesunited]

16. You mean guns in the hands of the public instead of the police and military?

Keep clear in your own mind what you claim is beneficial to the population.

Including the little ones who are getting plugged in their heads on the whim of their divorcing fathers.

[Straw Man]

17. "Instead"? Where did I say that?

I just pointed out the serious flaw in your analogy, which tries to portray firearms as a malum in se on the order of child pornography. If that were true, firearms would be equally vile no matter who wields them, something which you yourself obviously do not believe. In fact, you seem to have an authoritarian's love of the organs of state security, and are more than happy to entrust them with a lethal capability, despite ample evidence that they are no more (nor less) trustworthy in their application of it than other citizens.

If I am to bear the blame for the "little ones," are you going to cop to Amadou Diallou?

[sharesunited]

18. You're going to war with the police and the military. Did I pick up on your POV?

There are not too many versions which purport to justify convenient deadly force in your hands.

You think you are going to war with your government.

Well you're not.

[Straw Man]

19. I am doing no such thing. Where do you get this stuff?

I just don't worship authority as you do. I don't see the police and military as some separate species that is more competent and trustworthy. That's a far cry from going to war.

There are not too many versions which purport to justify convenient deadly force in your hands.

"Versions" of what? And who is doing this "purporting"? Could you please clarify this gibberish?

[sharesunited]

20. Versions of the I Must Have Guns Because anthem. Purport because no justification is justifiable.

You think you are some balancing quotient because of your guns?

No. You are a menace because of your guns.

Maybe not you personally, who may have some shred of competency which keeps you from killing.

But your access is the most unfit member of society's access.

And that is NOT ok. It is a threat to one and all.

[Straw Man]

21. "Purport" requires intention; a person can "purport," but a "version" cannot.

I never said I "must" have guns. I can have guns, and I do have guns. You are of the opinion that I "mustn't" have guns. I disagree, but the burden of proof is on you.

"Balancing quotient"? What am I supposed to be balancing? "Quotient" as in a mathematical equation? More gibberish. These words do not mean what you think they mean. Please clarify.

I am not a menace to you or to anybody. Your suggestion that a "shred of competency" is all that keeps me from killing would be offensive if it weren't so patently ridiculous. What keeps me from killing is a lifetime of socialization into a moral and ethical system that finds killing repugnant. Is it a "shred of competency" that keeps you from mowing down pedestrians when you get behind the wheel? I'd like to believe it's more than that.

But your access is the most unfit member of society's access.

In the name of all that is sane and rational, what on Earth is that supposed to mean? That because I have a gun, "the most unfit member of society" can have one? Have you seen anyone here arguing for that? That statement is meaningless beyond the obvious conclusion that if guns did not exist, bad people would not have them. How is this relevant to me?

[guitar man]

28. OK, we get it

You want every gun taken away from every citizen of this country. I think now a valid question would be, what means would you support to achieve that goal?

[Taverner]

2. It could go either way. More research is needed.

We know CCWs do have a slight effect on crime

And we know gun control causes more problems than it solves

But each environment is like an ecosystem, and needs to be looked at separately.

[demosincebirth]

3. Why don't we just allow high schoolers to pack in schools. You never

know when some crazy teenager will start shooting. Then every student will be ready

[DonP]

5. Because most of us know the age for CCW is 21

In all but 2 states CCW permit holders must be 21 or older. Playing the teenagers with guns game makes oyu just look foolish. Almost as silly as the "guns for everyone" fallacy.

[jpak]

24. Yeah, they can vote and go to war but they can't exercise their 2A rights - how authoritarian

yup

:rofl:

[armueller2001]

8. Because 21 is the minimum age for

CCW permits.

[demosincebirth]

25. I had a tinge of sarcasm in my post, but I guess some took it seriously.

[HankyDubs]

14. OMG TAKING AWAY FREEDUMBS

They are allowed to die for their country, allowed to vote and allowed to drive...

BUT THEY ARENT ALLOWED TO CARRY A PEACEMAKER TO MATH CLASS?!?!?!

FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE----DUMBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB!

[petronius]

4. Sounds like Chief Leathers ought to focus on training his officers to be a bit

more situationally aware, so they don't just show up and start blasting. Doesn't sound like he has too much confidence in his own police force...

[X_Digger]

12. Hasn't happenned in the rest of Dallas, one of the counties with the most CHL licensees.

Sounds like this..

[petronius]

13. Hasn't happened!? That's unpossible!

:shrug:

Cool image - I may need to 'borrow' it...

[lawodevolution]

9. “There is a greater risk of more lives being lost if that bill passes,”

If there is, they better get that evidence out soon, there are universities that allow CCW holders to carry on campus, find the data that shows those schools have problems because of it or this bill is going to pass.

[GreenStormCloud]

22. So he would rather the shooter be able to mow people down...

...than be immediately opposed. The CCWer will only be returning fire for a few seconds and then it will be over. The probability of his officers arriving during those few seconds if miniscule.

[Callisto32]

23. Next thing you know....

troll party at sizzler!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. Total Nonsense

As an LEO he allowed to carry anywhere WITHOUT A PERMIT in or out of uniform. That includes the normally banned ones like churches, bars, and schools. He will have the same privileges upon retirement.

[Atypical Liberal]

27. I'd be willing to take that chance.

If I had the opportunity to carry on campus, I'd take the risk that the good guys might shoot me as a tradeoff for being able to defend myself from the bad guys.

Everyone should have the opportunity to make that decision for themselves.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.