TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.kens5.com/news/SA-college-st ... 67579.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They never seem to point out that CHL can already carry on campus, just not in a building.

And, they should point out that the Librarian at Northeast Lakeview was shot by a 62 year old part time employee, who maybe had some type of mental issue, and not a student. That could happen at any job, or any place, and not necessarily by a CHL holder.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_ ... 705238.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How will this not necceserally make the campuses safer. Hello, if you want to rob or rape someone and you know they may have a gun, or some one close by might, you would think twice and probabbly not do it.

Notice how the reporter stuck in that the gunman was a CHL holder... although I researched the story and didn't find anything that supported that... Anyone else?

WacoCarry wrote:Notice how the reporter stuck in that the gunman was a CHL holder... although I researched the story and didn't find anything that supported that... Anyone else?

I looked at this before ... he had been issued a CHL (unknown from what State) 10 years earlier (unknown if he renewed it again after it was first issued) May not have had a current Texas CHL ... 10 years later. Dunno.

stealthfightrf17 wrote:How will this not necceserally make the campuses safer. Hello, if you want to rob or rape someone and you know they may have a gun, or some one close by might, you would think twice and probabbly not do it.

That is the main disconnect right there. We believe, with good reason, that more armed good guys makes for a safer environment.

They believe that more guns mean more potential for accidents and that far outweighs any possible, minor, effect we may have on actually stopping a crime.
(Plus, I think many of them suspect that most of us are borderline nuts and right on the edge of going on a killing spree at any moment. That's why you get arguments about students shooting professors over bad grades )

We want to carry guns. Why? Safety.
They want to keep our guns out. Why? Safety.
That's the sticking point where neither side can convince the other.

mgood wrote:

stealthfightrf17 wrote:How will this not necceserally make the campuses safer. Hello, if you want to rob or rape someone and you know they may have a gun, or some one close by might, you would think twice and probabbly not do it.

That is the main disconnect right there. We believe, with good reason, that more armed good guys makes for a safer environment.

They believe that more guns mean more potential for accidents and that far outweighs any possible, minor, effect we may have on actually stopping a crime.
(Plus, I think many of them suspect that most of us are borderline nuts and right on the edge of going on a killing spree at any moment. That's why you get arguments about students shooting professors over bad grades )

We want to carry guns. Why? Safetey.
They want to keep our guns out. Why? Safety.
That's the sticking point where neither side can convince the other.

I think you're giving the anti-gun crowd too much credit. Undoubtedly some of them are simply ignorant about guns and self-defense and truly concerned and confused about safety. However, I think the activists are primarily ideologues using safety arguments as cover , and what they're against primarily is the right of self-defense. Leftists don't want ordinary people doing anything for themselves, especially defending themselves against thugs. This is often reflected in their merely politically expedient claims that they recognize some limited government granted privilege in using guns for "sporting" purposes, like hunting and target shooting. Whenever they speak of "legitimate" uses for guns they never mention self-defense. These people don't even want you to be able to take passive self-defense measures such as wearing a kevlar vest.

VMI77 wrote:

mgood wrote:

stealthfightrf17 wrote:How will this not necceserally make the campuses safer. Hello, if you want to rob or rape someone and you know they may have a gun, or some one close by might, you would think twice and probabbly not do it.

That is the main disconnect right there. We believe, with good reason, that more armed good guys makes for a safer environment.

They believe that more guns mean more potential for accidents and that far outweighs any possible, minor, effect we may have on actually stopping a crime.
(Plus, I think many of them suspect that most of us are borderline nuts and right on the edge of going on a killing spree at any moment. That's why you get arguments about students shooting professors over bad grades )

We want to carry guns. Why? Safetey.
They want to keep our guns out. Why? Safety.
That's the sticking point where neither side can convince the other.

I think you're giving the anti-gun crowd too much credit. Undoubtedly some of them are simply ignorant about guns and self-defense and truly concerned and confused about safety. However, I think the activists are primarily ideologues using safety arguments as cover , and what they're against primarily is the right of self-defense. Leftists don't want ordinary people doing anything for themselves, especially defending themselves against thugs. This is often reflected in their merely politically expedient claims that they recognize some limited government granted privilege in using guns for "sporting" purposes, like hunting and target shooting. Whenever they speak of "legitimate" uses for guns they never mention self-defense. These people don't even want you to be able to take passive self-defense measures such as wearing a kevlar vest.

When I've had been in discussions where guns came up and an anti surfaced, I quickly changed to a different subject. I can predict, with very good accuracy, exactly how the now exposed anti is going to respond to any subject which involves government regulation. I like to then double back the conversation after we've explored the US dependence on foreign oil or Internet Freedom Preservation act to ask "how is that working out for you?" The answer seems to always be a mind boggling "because the regulations didn't go far enough."

chasfm11 wrote:

VMI77 wrote:I think you're giving the anti-gun crowd too much credit. Undoubtedly some of them are simply ignorant about guns and self-defense and truly concerned and confused about safety. However, I think the activists are primarily ideologues using safety arguments as cover , and what they're against primarily is the right of self-defense. Leftists don't want ordinary people doing anything for themselves, especially defending themselves against thugs. This is often reflected in their merely politically expedient claims that they recognize some limited government granted privilege in using guns for "sporting" purposes, like hunting and target shooting. Whenever they speak of "legitimate" uses for guns they never mention self-defense. These people don't even want you to be able to take passive self-defense measures such as wearing a kevlar vest.

When I've had been in discussions where guns came up and an anti surfaced, I quickly changed to a different subject. I can predict, with very good accuracy, exactly how the now exposed anti is going to respond to any subject which involves government regulation. I like to then double back the conversation after we've explored the US dependence on foreign oil or Internet Freedom Preservation act to ask "how is that working out for you?" The answer seems to always be a mind boggling "because the regulations didn't go far enough."

x2. Most of the anti gun folks you meet that just have a gut reaction of "guns are bad, mmmkk" are what Lenin referred to as Useful Idiots. Those who actively campaign to deny us the right to self defense probably think Lenin had the right idea, and look forward to when we're disarmed so they can break a few eggs (us) to make their socialist utopia omelet.

A person with any interest is facts or history will not take long to conclude concealed carry is a net positive for a free society. For some, the free part is what they think is wrong with our society.

Y'all are right. My descriptions of how people feel about safety is based on my observations of lots of people who don't get too involved in the debates and just believe the stuff they're fed about guns being so many times more likely to shoot you or a family member than a home invader. But these are the people we need to win over to advance our cause.

For those in power, and those leading the movement, gun control isn't about guns but about control. Cliche, but so true. They want you to depend on the police to protect you, depend on the government to make sure your needs are met. This gives them a reason for being and reinforces their control. We're not going to win them over to our side. Best we can hope for is to keep them convinced that we have enough votes to fire them if they get too out of control.

mgood wrote:

stealthfightrf17 wrote: They believe that more guns mean more potential for accidents and that far outweighs any possible, minor, effect we may have on actually stopping a crime.
(Plus, I think many of them suspect that most of us are borderline nuts and right on the edge of going on a killing spree at any moment. That's why you get arguments about students shooting professors over bad grades )

"No one ever just snaps," C said. "There are warning signs that this individual will give you before he does what he does. They're looking to be stopped. They want the situation to change."

http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/art ... 840521.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

First off. Second state to allow campus carry? Good research.

But more importantly I have a question. 2008 northeast lakeview college school shooting was a CHL holder? I can find all sorts of things on the shooting but not one that says the shooter was a licensed gun carrier. Is that true?

mreavis wrote:First off. Second state to allow campus carry? Good research.

But more importantly I have a question. 2008 northeast lakeview college school shooting was a CHL holder? I can find all sorts of things on the shooting but not one that says the shooter was a licensed gun carrier. Is that true?

All that's known by myself is in the court records ... There was testimony that 10 years prior, he had been issued a license, unknown from which State, unknown if he renewed, unknown if he had a current Texas chl at the time

RPB wrote:

mreavis wrote:First off. Second state to allow campus carry? Good research.

But more importantly I have a question. 2008 northeast lakeview college school shooting was a CHL holder? I can find all sorts of things on the shooting but not one that says the shooter was a licensed gun carrier. Is that true?

All that's known by myself is in the court records ... There was testimony that 10 years prior, he had been issued a license, unknown from which State, unknown if he renewed, unknown if he had a current Texas chl at the time

Interesting, thank you for posting that.