Vasquez on 19/5/2011 at 04:48
Quote Posted by CCCToad
bunch suburban wannabe gangbangers
Or maybe just your average teens, who could really tell from across the internets. But yeah, guess they must've got it coming, ha ha.
Koki on 19/5/2011 at 14:07
That's a normal teen in UK.
Matthew on 19/5/2011 at 14:30
Sadly, Koki is spot on this time.
CCCToad on 19/5/2011 at 14:51
that just makes the UK sound awful.
hopper on 19/5/2011 at 15:26
That's what happens when Koki is spot on.
CCCToad on 19/5/2011 at 18:53
That and the apocalypse. On second thought, the nutjobs saying that the world will end tomorrow might be right. Not because they guy's math adds up, but because Koki's being correct is the harbinger of doom.
CCCToad on 19/5/2011 at 20:58
Quote Posted by Tocky
That's funny. They acknowledge they need to be shot.
.
Shush you, some of them might take offense to that comment.
texag on 19/5/2011 at 23:00
Quote Posted by Azaran
Yes, but the opportunity for gun violence is facilitated by having access to guns. It will be easier for the next Virginia Tech-style killer to go on a shooting rampage, if he knows he can go into campus with a gun with complete impunity. This law is one less deterrent for people like that.
Legally, I can carry a fire arm on Texas Campuses. I just can not enter a building with it. And this law applys only to people licensed to carry a concealed weapon, one of the safest demographics in america.
texag on 19/5/2011 at 23:12
Quote Posted by heywood
The above logic is bass ackwards since the Virginia Tech shooter was a lawful gun owner.
The root cause of VT was the failure of the instant background check system to identify someone not eligible to buy a gun. The shooter was under treatment for mental illness on and off since childhood and had recently been ordered by a judge to enter another treatment program after stalking a woman. He shouldn't have been eligible to purchase a gun but the streamlined instant background check system didn't pick it up.
The solution here is to make sure the background checks are more thorough, not to make sure there are enough armed civilians on campus to take him down.
I grew up hunting in upstate NY which had a very onerous process for handgun permits. I remember it required a whole bunch of paperwork, numerous checks, and a year to get my handgun permit. Not concealed carry, just a handgun permit. I don't think it should take that long, but I do think the bar has to be raised in states like Virginia to weed out the impulse buyers and people who don't take gun ownership responsibility seriously. I think anyone who needs a gun *right now* probably shouldn't have one.
Besides that, somehow there has to be better traceability. Way too many crime guns are being stolen, in some cases for real and in some cases reported stolen to cover up an illegal sale. And way too many are being sold legally in states with looser regulations and then trafficked across state lines. Obviously, there have to be networks of "serial" purchasers who are then reselling on the black market. Why aren't we finding more of them?
And that brings me to my main issue with the change to Texas law. While I'm not too concerned about faculty carrying on campus, the thought of students possessing them on campus really worries me. Having been one, I question whether college students can be responsible enough to carry. What's going to happen when the guy carrying the firearm passes out drunk?
If I take drink alcohol while carrying a concealed weapon in the state of Texas I am breaking the law. There is no minimum BAC for being considered intoxicated according to Texas CHL law. Further, you seem to be claiming that just because I am in college I am more likely to pass out drunk than a CHL holder slightly older than myself. Also, how many people over 21 do you think party on campus? Despite the fact that drinking while carrying is illegal in practice, This law would not likely affect your scary hypothetical situation.
