TexasCHLforum.com

bryang wrote: Anyway...who is this guy and what is he doing in TEXAS?

-geo

Excaliber wrote:History clearly shows that laws, rules, and signs do not eliminate guns from an environment unless enforced with airport style security backed by on premises armed response.

Signs alone also don't constitute deterrence. If they did, we could save a ton of money in the federal budget by eliminating TSA screening at the airport - signs prohibiting guns, bombs, knives, and more than 3oz. of liquid in a container are already there.

On the contrary, unenforced signage produces a situation where law abiding potential defenders comply, and deranged attackers don't.

Working on a college campus myself, I'm actually OK if they want to make it a gun-free zone...as long as they are realistic about that and enforce it with said measures as you mentioned. Maybe a back door way we could win on the campus carry issue (assuming there's problems which I pray there won't be) would be to change the law to compel businesses/schools/etc. who post 30.06 or otherwise are off-limits for CHL to employ metal detectors and armed guards at all entrances to all buildings. No more of this phoney-baloney "the sign makes us safe."

The trouble with using metal detectors on a college campus (aside from the massive breach of privacy) is the sheer logistical nightmare it would create. think of how many entrances there are into the college, the number of students, staff, and faculty who go on and off campus everyday, and then consider all of the pocket change, keys, pocketknives, etc they carry. Then factor in the backpacks and bags they all take with them-these would have to ALL be scanned by x-ray EVERY time a person entered campus, with the enormous lines and cost that creates. Additionally, all of the entrances and x-ray machines would have to manned by trained personnel to operate the machines and guards to make sure that nobody simply ignores the checkpoint or tries to bypass it.
I simply don't see any way of making it practical.

T3hK1w1 wrote:The trouble with using metal detectors on a college campus (aside from the massive breach of privacy) is the sheer logistical nightmare it would create. think of how many entrances there are into the college, the number of students, staff, and faculty who go on and off campus everyday, and then consider all of the pocket change, keys, pocketknives, etc they carry. Then factor in the backpacks and bags they all take with them-these would have to ALL be scanned by x-ray EVERY time a person entered campus, with the enormous lines and cost that creates. Additionally, all of the entrances and x-ray machines would have to manned by trained personnel to operate the machines and guards to make sure that nobody simply ignores the checkpoint or tries to bypass it.
I simply don't see any way of making it practical.

Exactly! You walked right into my trap. Mwahaha! If they make metal detectors legally required in gun free zones, but then schools realize what a pain in the rear it would be, they'll just give in and free up the campus for CHL.

No. That would make sense. What would make even more sense is skipping the first step.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

flintknapper wrote:

kd5zex wrote:

“The idea that somebody could stop a school shooting with a gun is impossible."

What!?!?

"It’s reactive, not preventative.”

Yes, that's the point.

“Everything happens too quickly,” Woods said. “You either play dead or you are dead.”

Just goes to show the how deep the conditioning goes. Even after being "exposed", although I gather from the article he was not actually present during the shooting, he feels that he is helpless.

Good job there parents!

He is the perfect example of the day care generation.

That is so true..."the day care generation" I have seen people have kids and in a week go back to work and drop off the kid at the day care. The parents pick them up at 6:00 and put them to bed by 7:00...what parents??

Raised in a day care and then raised by the liberal school system, indoctrinated by wacko teachers and professors, it is no wonder they have these crazy ideas.

Had never heard it put that way..."the day care generation"...but is a perfect example.

-geo

bryang wrote: That is so true..."the day care generation" I have seen people have kids and in a week go back to work and drop off the kid at the day care. The parents pick them up at 6:00 and put them to bed by 7:00...what parents??

Raised in a day care and then raised by the liberal school system, indoctrinated by wacko teachers and professors, it is no wonder they have these crazy ideas.

Had never heard it put that way..."the day care generation"...but is a perfect example.

-geo

Nowadays, If you don't send your children to day care (or pre-school as it is called in order for the parents feel better about themselves) you are looked at as strange and even a poor parent in some folks eyes.

I personally know families where both parents work and one parent is working at a net loss.

ClarkLZeuss wrote: Maybe a back door way we could win on the campus carry issue (assuming there's problems which I pray there won't be) would be to change the law to compel businesses/schools/etc. who post 30.06 or otherwise are off-limits for CHL to employ metal detectors and armed guards at all entrances to all buildings. No more of this phoney-baloney "the sign makes us safe."

In other words, anyone who legally prevents you from defending yourself becomes legally responsible and liable to actively defend you themselves.

I love it! What a great illustration of the issues involved.

tesla wrote:

ClarkLZeuss wrote: Maybe a back door way we could win on the campus carry issue (assuming there's problems which I pray there won't be) would be to change the law to compel businesses/schools/etc. who post 30.06 or otherwise are off-limits for CHL to employ metal detectors and armed guards at all entrances to all buildings. No more of this phoney-baloney "the sign makes us safe."

In other words, anyone who legally prevents you from defending yourself becomes legally responsible and liable to actively defend you themselves.

Well said! Better worded than what I wrote. I think that is exactly the issue.

tesla wrote:

ClarkLZeuss wrote: Maybe a back door way we could win on the campus carry issue (assuming there's problems which I pray there won't be) would be to change the law to compel businesses/schools/etc. who post 30.06 or otherwise are off-limits for CHL to employ metal detectors and armed guards at all entrances to all buildings. No more of this phoney-baloney "the sign makes us safe."

In other words, anyone who legally prevents you from defending yourself becomes legally responsible and liable to actively defend you themselves.

I love it! What a great illustration of the issues involved.

This really is the crux of the issue, and the way liability should be assessed in a just world. The challenge will be to get it written into law in the world we live in.