Professors packing heat!?

#54
#54
<p>
KB5252 said:
If the criminal element believes there is a good chance that those they may wish to rob, intimidate or shoot may possibly be carrying a concealed weapon they will be less likely to act on those impulses. As for the nut jobs, they will find a way to commit whatever act of violence they wish to carry out. Could be a bomb or sword for that matter. Is it worth taking away a law abiding persons right to defend their property or families lives?
Click to expand...
</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>


And that means that guns on campus won't help much. That's what the bill is about- not people on the mean streets of Murfreesboro.
 
#55
#55
GoVols876 said:
Senate Bill 3730, sponsored by State Senator Dewayne Bunch (R-09) and companion House Bill 3014, sponsored by State Representative Stacey Campfield (R-18), would authorize full-time faculty and staff with valid handgun carry permits at public schools, colleges, and universities in Tennessee to carry handguns upon completion of an annual firearms training course. Both bills are in respective Judiciary Committees.

If this bill passes, it will allow staff and faculty to carry weapons on campus. There has been a lot written for both sides of the argument in our newspaper about why this is a good or bad thing. I wanted to know how you guys feel about it.

Personally, I do not like the idea of people carrying guns on campus. It makes me uneasy. I think schools should be gun/drug/alcohol free zones. The fewer guns on campus the better.
Click to expand...

Why just stop at the boundaries of the university? Why not make the city of Knoxville a gun/drug/alcohol free zone?
 
#56
#56
Unless I am mistaken this would ALLOW the legal possession of a weapon, not require it, right? This is, I feel, worth noting from reading earlier posts. If someone cannot demonstrate a degree of proficiency with their weapon or even the desire to have one then they don't get one. This would go a long way towards eliminating AD's (accidental discharges) that could result in injury. Having said that I've not grown fond of the Russian Roulette oddsmaking used in deciding the worth of having a weapon available. Think of all the things you do because something MIGHT happen if you didn't. Seat belts. Flu shots. Disinfectant wipes. (etc.) We're not dealing with theory here, guns have stopped shooting sprees already. The lady in the church recently. The guy at the mall recently. Even at schools. The Appalachian School of Law had two students both go to their vehicles and retreive personal weapons and subdued Peter Odighizuwa after he had shot 6, killing 3. In '99 Luke Woodham slit his mothers throat, grabbed a lever action rifle and went to his Pearl Miss high school and shot 9 kids before trying to escape to the Jr High to shoot more kids. He was stopped by Assistant Principal Joel Myrick and his .45. In the latter two cases the armed heroes had to go to their vehicles and get guns after they knew killing had already began. Who might still be with us if they had already been so armed?
 
#57
#57
hndog609 said:
Unless I am mistaken this would ALLOW the legal possession of a weapon, not require it, right? This is, I feel, worth noting from reading earlier posts. If someone cannot demonstrate a degree of proficiency with their weapon or even the desire to have one then they don't get one. This would go a long way towards eliminating AD's (accidental discharges) that could result in injury.
Click to expand...
and just who has accidental discharges. premature I can see, but accidental?
 
#62
#62
lawgator1 said:
Arguably even worse than making them do it as, under the bill, only the enthusiastic will be armed.

Don't like that at all.
Click to expand...
You do know, LG, that guns are simply tools. When used correctly and responsibly they are actually very productive instruments.
 
#63
#63
lawgator1 said:
Arguably even worse than making them do it as, under the bill, only the enthusiastic will be armed.

Don't like that at all.
Click to expand...

I was simply incredulous after reading something this silly. So people that might actually already be familiar with personal firearms security and safety would be considered a liability over people that might not only be completely new to handguns but might even be armed against their will? And this based on the idea that the only people willing to exercise this right would somehow be "enthusiastic"?

This is coming from a lawyer?
 
#65
#65
lawgator1 said:
<p></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>


And that means that guns on campus won't help much. That's what the bill is about- not people on the mean streets of Murfreesboro.
Click to expand...

But having a gun COULD make a difference.
 
#66
#66
therealUT said:
You do know, LG, that guns are simply tools. When used correctly and responsibly they are actually very productive instruments.
Click to expand...

hndog609 said:
I was simply incredulous after reading something this silly. So people that might actually already be familiar with personal firearms security and safety would be considered a liability over people that might not only be completely new to handguns but might even be armed against their will? And this based on the idea that the only people willing to exercise this right would somehow be "enthusiastic"?

This is coming from a lawyer?
Click to expand...


I would rather have people who are trained and paid to carry and use firearms do so than rely on people with thinly-veiled vigilante mentalities running around ready to take on the wackos.
 
#67
#67
lawgator1 said:
I would rather have people who are trained and paid to carry and use firearms do so than rely on people with thinly-veiled vigilante mentalities running around ready to take on the wackos.
Click to expand...

Often, there is not a lot of difference between the 2 groups you just described.
 
#68
#68
LG1, BPV is correct in his view that the possibility of a target carrying a weapon reduces the probability of that target being the subject of a violent crime. The one intelligent thing the Texas legislature has done since I've been here is to make it legal to carry a concealed weapon. I invite you to look at the record in Texas before and after that law was enacted and keep your opinion that it has no effect on crime. You can also look for evidence that those people that have met the requirements and have a concealed license have been involved in a violent act as the aggressor. I won't say that it hasn't happened, but I haven't heard of one instance that it has.

I got a good laugh from your comment about a gun being stolen from a briefcase. Someone with a conceal license will be carrying on their person. A gun in a briefcase is no better than a cell phone preprogrammed for 911.
 
#69
#69
allvol123 said:
Often, there is not a lot of difference between the 2 groups you just described.
Click to expand...

Indeed. There are many who believe those "paid to carry and use firearms" do so precisely because they possess "thinly-veiled vigilante mentalities". Regardless, the greater question is why people (Lawgator et.al) seem completely incapable of reconciling a willingness to carry a firearm with some Bronsonesque Death Wish fetish.

Gator, you've got the resources. How about you pull up illegal use of handguns by permit holders while carrying armed vs those leveled at police officers?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top