TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 8.html?npc

This is from the Dallas Morning news. This second part of this statement simply made my jaw drop:

"We at El Centro (College) say it’s time to do more to stop gun violence, especially in our schools,� said student president Ashley Holmes in a news release. “School is not a place for guns. We have campus police and Dallas police available for our protection,� she later said at the event. "

This statement was made in regard to the VT shootings and the push for legislation to allow guns in schools. How is it completely lost on this individual that VT also had campus security and local LEO, and those things did not provide the "protection" of which she speaks? Unbelieveable.

I think it's wonderful that she is confident she speaks for the entire student body and faculty.

Obviously a very gifted individual wise beyond her years. No wonder she is student body president.

El Centro College? Isn't that in Mexico? I hear that they have a great pinata decorating program!

Why does she want police to disarm before coming on campus?

all i could read was

"baaaahhhh, baaaaaahhhh, baaaaaahhhhhh, baaahhhhhh"

When will people learn that the only way the police can protect you is if you are standing behind one. Don't get me wrong, I respect LEO's and appreciate what they do, but the facts are that unless you are standing next to one, they can't help you. It's just a matter of time and physics, the cops rarely arrive at the scene of a shooting while there is still an active shooter. It's not their fault, it just works that way.

Dave01 wrote:
“School is not a place for guns. We have campus police and Dallas police available for our protection,� she later said at the event. "

Another sheeple putting the responsibility of self protection onto others. She's right, school is not a place for guns because it makes a victim rich environment.

What an idiot. I hope she doesn't ever reproduce.

Glock 23 wrote:all i could read was

"baaaahhhh, baaaaaahhhh, baaaaaahhhhhh, baaahhhhhh"

It reminded me of Charlie brown's teacher, "waaaa-wa-wa-wa-wa".

the accomplishments of each of the 32 echoed across the Drillfield: Austin Cloyd had an iron will. Caitlin Hammaren loved playing the violin. Emily Hilscher was an enthusiastic cook. Jarrett Lane was a friend to all he met. Liviu Librescu embodied profound courage.

This is what I don't get. It's great that they're honoring the professor who bodily blocked a door, saving some of his students' lives at the cost of his own. Starting from that unassailable position, the logic train is simple and undeniable:
1) Prof. Librescu embodied profound courage
2) That courage demonstrably saved lives by delaying the shooter
3) The actions of courageous people on the scene can save lives
4) Deploying self-sacrificial courage to save lives is an action to be praised
5) More effective actions by those courageous people can be more effective in saving lives
6) If Prof. Librescu could have delayed him longer, more lives would have been saved
7) Stopping the shooter is the most effective form of delaying him - effectively "delaying" him infinitely
8) The most effective means to stop the shooter is to render him unable or unwilling to shoot
9) The most efficient and reliable way to stop the shooter is to shoot him
10) Ergo, logic forces one to wonder, how many more lives could have been saved had Prof. Librescu, who we all agree is to be counted among humanity's bravest souls, been armed?

Why would we deny the Prof. Librescus of the world the ability to save more lives than they would if they're empty-handed? Change the name in that logic train to "Jeanne Assam" and the location to "New Life Church, Colorado Springs, CO" and it's moved from hypothesis to empirical evidence.

AARGH!!! Now I'm getting frustrated at reflecting how little thinking people actually do in their daily lives when they can't wrap their heads around something to simple.

To me, it all comes down to a part of Jeffery Snyder's thesis. Self esteem - the real kind as opposed to the phony 'talk is cheap you're a great human being' kind.

Personally, I place a very high value on my life and the lives of my loved ones. So high in fact, that there's no way I am going to be satisfied "outsourcing" the physical protection of those lives to state-supplied low paid hired help (i.e. the police). Especially when the mission of those people is of necessity reactive. IOW, they only mobilize and show up AFTER a violent assault has begun.

I cannot fathom the thought processes of people who think so little of themselves that they would blythely delegate their protection to the police or to anyone besides themselves.

Critical thinking skills certainly have taken a dive in the last few decades.

I wonder why the people making these thoughtless statements, like the student body president quoted above, don't notice that public officials like mayors, governors, presidents, etc. do not content themselves with simply declaring wherever they might happen to be to be a gun free zone. That instead, these folks generally are accompanied by a contingent of (taxpayer supplied) armed security to ensure their personal safety.

Likewise, the rich and super rich generally employ personal bodyguards, including armed guards, rather than relying on the reactive police to protect them.

I suspect it is because these people actually have large amounts of real self esteem and also a well developed ability to distinguish between reality and airy nonsense. (Probably one of the reasons they managed to become rich in the first place.)