TexasCHLforum.com

swc007 wrote:im a college student and i fully support the idea of being able to carry in a class with one concern haha... i talked to my CHL instructor about this as well... im not sure if i personally want some of the people that sit in my class to be able to carry a pistol... meaning if some crazy person busted into the lecture hall and started popping off rounds i would be worried about catching a bullet from the goofy kid sitting behind me too... so i was thinking that qualifications to be able to carry inside a class would be a little more challenging to pass than just the normal CHL test... im all for it though!!! don't get me wrong

Samurai Blur wrote:I'm not mad, it's just my opinion? And when did we get 2 civilians and 1 cop? It may have left out details, and I'm not saying it didn't, but what I did say is that they had to run across the lawn while Whitman was shooting. I don't know where you got the idea that I was trying to say that the three organized a plan together. I never said that. I admit that they each acted on their own, and that was the POINT I was trying to make. So you can stop twisting things up and trying to make it look like I don't know how it happened. Either way it goes, whether they went through a tunnel or ran across the lawn, they still went in, acting of their own, individual accord, and stopped the gunman, and the police that handled the columbine shooting attempted no such thing. So I don't see "trained tactics" as being a good excuse. And where the heck do you get that I was interpreting your thoughts about Columbine as an anti-gun sentiment?! I disagree with you, so suddenly I have to think your sentiments are anti-gun?! What the heck?

Samurai Blur wrote:

Douva wrote:

Samurai Blur wrote:

Douva wrote:

Samurai Blur wrote:"Argument: 'The job of defending campuses against violent attacks should be left to the professionals.'"
This is one of the arguments I have a lot of trouble with. I remember watching the Columbine high school incident LIVE and seeing cops behind their cars, while lining up the kids on the outside wall as they came out. It was like they were running from one hostile situation to another. Running from one gun being pointed at them to the next gun being pointed at them. The police were absolutely no help whatsoever, and didn't even go into the building for a good 30 minutes after the shooting stopped. In my opinion, there shouldn't have been a single cop in that city with a job at the end of the day. Fat lot of good they did.

The problem wasn't with the officers; it was with the training/tactics in place at the time.

Do you recall all of the news reports about how airlines changed the training given to flight crews after 9/11? They used to tell pilots and flight attendants to comply with the demands of hijackers, because they assumed that the hijackers would be willing to negotiate. Now that they realize that most contemporary would-be hijackers are actually INTENT on dying. That significantly changes the rules of the game.

Back in '99, when the Columbine shooting occurred, police training didn't differentiate between an active shooter scenario and a typical hostage scenario. Police were trained to wait for SWAT backup and try to negotiate with gunmen. They weren't trained to deal with gunmen INTENT on dying. Again, the rules of the game have changed significantly. Here is an interesting news piece that discusses the resulting change in police tactics: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6838&hl=en" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, it's great that they use different tactics now, but it still doesn't change anything, and as far as I'm concerned, the things you have said does not make it right to have to always "leave it up to the professionals." To be quite honest, I still don't see any of that being a viable excuse. When the Austin sniper started shooting people, they didn't have SWAT and all that. It was two police officers and a civilian with a shotgun that punched across the lawn, while dodging bullets, to get to the top of the tower and stop this guy and that was many years before columbine. Sorry, I just don't see "tactics" as a good excuse for the fact that the police waited outside for 30 minutes after the shooting stopped. I see that as failure to do their job, and again, for that they should have been fired.

Great video, by the way.

I never suggested we should "leave it up to the professionals" (I wouldn't have written the handbook if that was my attitude). I did, however, suggest that you were wrong in blaming the Littleton/Denver police officers for the way the Columbine shooting was handled. These were real police officers, not movie cops or cowboys. They did their jobs as they were trained. Lashing out against law enforcement is no way to reach our goals.

Also, you're wrong about the facts of the UT sniper attack. Some of the facts of the attack will never be entirely clear, since many of the participants have different recollections of the course of the events, but none of the eye witness accounts include two police officers and a civilian armed with a shotgun punching across the lawn while dodging bullets.

The police officers gained access to the tower via the underground tunnels that connect buildings on the UT campus. There they encountered civilian Allen Crum, who was carrying a borrowed .30 caliber lever-action rifle, not a shotgun. When they reached the observation deck, Officer Ramiro Martinez left Crum to guard the deck entrance, while he proceeded north along the deck. As Officer Martinez slowly worked his way north, officer Houston McCoy caught up to him. At about that same time, officer Jerry Day and Allen Crum began working their way south along the deck. As they neared the southwest corner, Crum accidentally discharged his rifle (by some accounts narrowly missing Day). This apparently distracted the shooter long enough for Martinez and McCoy to get the drop on him.

Your rebuttal to my response is a classic example of what happens when gun rights enthusiasts are more enthusiastic than knowledgeable--they cite half-truths as facts and end up (if you'll excuse the pun) shooting themselves in the foot. If you were to cite your "It was two police officers and a civilian with a shotgun that punched across the lawn, while dodging bullets" argument while debating Paul Helmke on the issue of concealed carry on college campuses, he might just turn around and (depending on how well versed he is in the facts of the UT sniper attack) respond that the civilian's only real contribution to the assault on the observation deck was an accidental discharge that almost killed a police officer. Suddenly, you're left looking very stupid, and the president of the Brady Campaign is left looking very bright.

As also demonstrated by your rebuttal, another thing that happens when gun rights enthusiasts are more dogmatic than informed is that they end up attributing anti-gun (i.e., "leave it to the professionals") attitudes to anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with them 100% (even the guy who wrote the pro-gun handbook that sparked the discussion in the first place).

My dad lived in Austin and was a UT student at the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW_9AnmVoXY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This is the URL for a documentary that shows 2 cops and a civilian running across the lawn to get to the tower. All accounts show that this is the most accurate story, according to the men who stopped him. I would appreciate it if you didn't accuse me of citing half truths when you don't know what you're talking about. Though you were right. The civilian wasn't armed with a shotgun, that was one of the police officers. The civilian had a rifle. My mistake.

Edit: Just to make sure we aren't misunderstanding each other, I wasn't arguing against the person who wrote the hand book. I was making an argument against the anti-gun mentality he was talking about which says "We should let the professionals handle it."

Samurai Blur wrote:

Douva wrote:

Samurai Blur wrote:

Argument: "The job of defending campuses against violent attacks should be left to the professionals."

This is one of the arguments I have a lot of trouble with. I remember watching the Columbine high school incident LIVE and seeing cops behind their cars, while lining up the kids on the outside wall as they came out. It was like they were running from one hostile situation to another. Running from one gun being pointed at them to the next gun being pointed at them. The police were absolutely no help whatsoever, and didn't even go into the building for a good 30 minutes after the shooting stopped. In my opinion, there shouldn't have been a single cop in that city with a job at the end of the day. Fat lot of good they did.

The problem wasn't with the officers; it was with the training/tactics in place at the time.

Do you recall all of the news reports about how airlines changed the training given to flight crews after 9/11? They used to tell pilots and flight attendants to comply with the demands of hijackers, because they assumed that the hijackers would be willing to negotiate. Now that they realize that most contemporary would-be hijackers are actually INTENT on dying. That significantly changes the rules of the game.

Back in '99, when the Columbine shooting occurred, police training didn't differentiate between an active shooter scenario and a typical hostage scenario. Police were trained to wait for SWAT backup and try to negotiate with gunmen. They weren't trained to deal with gunmen INTENT on dying. Again, the rules of the game have changed significantly. Here is an interesting news piece that discusses the resulting change in police tactics: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6838&hl=en" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, it's great that they use different tactics now, but it still doesn't change anything, and as far as I'm concerned, the things you have said does not make it right to have to always "leave it up to the professionals." To be quite honest, I still don't see any of that being a viable excuse. When the Austin sniper started shooting people, they didn't have SWAT and all that. It was two police officers and a civilian with a shotgun that punched across the lawn, while dodging bullets, to get to the top of the tower and stop this guy and that was many years before columbine. Sorry, I just don't see "tactics" as a good excuse for the fact that the police waited outside for 30 minutes after the shooting stopped. I see that as failure to do their job, and again, for that they should have been fired.

Great video, by the way.

Douva wrote:

KC5AV wrote:

KD5NRH wrote:12-28-2008

Douva wrote:If you don't see your State Representative and/or State Senator listed, consider buying one or both of them a copy of the handbook ($8.83 + $5.25 S&H).

02-13-2009

If anybody wants to order a copy of the handbook (the cost is $9.13 + $5.25 S&H)

$.30 increase in two months? By the time my kid's old enough to take an interest in this book, it'll cost as much as her textbooks.

Save money. Buy her a copy now, while prices are low.

We added 10 pages to the handbook, at a cost of $0.03/page. But the new information is all important, Texas-specific information, so it's worth the additional $0.30.

Samurai Blur wrote:

Argument: "The job of defending campuses against violent attacks should be left to the professionals."

This is one of the arguments I have a lot of trouble with. I remember watching the Columbine high school incident LIVE and seeing cops behind their cars, while lining up the kids on the outside wall as they came out. It was like they were running from one hostile situation to another. Running from one gun being pointed at them to the next gun being pointed at them. The police were absolutely no help whatsoever, and didn't even go into the building for a good 30 minutes after the shooting stopped. In my opinion, there shouldn't have been a single cop in that city with a job at the end of the day. Fat lot of good they did.

KC5AV wrote:

KD5NRH wrote:12-28-2008

Douva wrote:If you don't see your State Representative and/or State Senator listed, consider buying one or both of them a copy of the handbook ($8.83 + $5.25 S&H).

02-13-2009

If anybody wants to order a copy of the handbook (the cost is $9.13 + $5.25 S&H)

$.30 increase in two months? By the time my kid's old enough to take an interest in this book, it'll cost as much as her textbooks.

Save money. Buy her a copy now, while prices are low.

Liberty wrote:I swear they have more groups than actual members.

Liberty wrote:I sent Craig Eiland district 23 a copy. I don't have a face book account so I have no means of updating the site.
I hope he accepts the handbook in the spirit that I send it to him.

This is a great idea, congradulations. It should prove very effective.