Texas allows guns in college classrooms under new law

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Of course, what happens when two good guys with a gun mistake the other for a bad guy is less clear, but they'll work it all out eventually.

Can you name some instances where this has happened? Outside of the battlefield I mean. That's just one of anti-gun lobbies talking points but it's based on a supposition not a fact.

In Texas, a “good guy” tried to help a carjacking victim, but because he was improperly trained, he accidentally shot the victim in the head while the carjackers escaped. The Texas “good guy” even fled the scene with the carjackers.

http://deadstate.org/combat-veterans...omment-page-1/

[Oberon]

Not yet, not publically anyway, but it's come close:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health..._firearms.html


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/1...h-Good-Guy-Gun

[August]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

http://deadstate.org/combat-veterans...omment-page-1/

Not quite the same thing but i'll see that and raise you 12.

http://controversialtimes.com/issues...uys-with-guns/

12 what? The discussion was over incidents regarding 'good guys' potentially shooting each other. If it is going to be extended to other incidents involving guns held by civilians*, logically it also needs to include incidents like this:

On April 27, a toddler in Milwaukee accidentally shot and killed his mother from the back seat of her car. The two-year-old picked up the gun after it slid under the seat and fired as they were driving down the highway. His mother died at the scene.

While it’s easy to classify accidental shootings like this tragedy as freak accidents, they’re not as rare as you think. The Washington Post found that there have been at least 23 shootings carried out by children under the age of 4 this year, up over 25 percent from this time last year.

http://www.vocativ.com/315008/even-t...lence-problem/

And back on the topic of 'good guys' potentially shooting 'good guys', read this:

Gabrielle Giffords and the perils of guns: How an armed hero nearly shot the wrong man.
...
This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon. Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot. He was sufficiently convinced of the killer's identity to shove the man into a wall. But Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man. He was, as he acknowledges, "very lucky."

http://www.slate.com/articles/health..._firearms.html

* Edit: just noticed that not all of the 12 incidents involved civilian 'good guys' anyway. I don't think anyone is arguing that U.S. law enforcement officers should be unarmed.

[August]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

12 what? The discussion was over incidents regarding 'good guys' potentially shooting each other.l

Not quite. The discussion was on whether people should have the right to carry firearms on college campus' and the unproven assumption that in a mass shooting situation armed "good guys" would just shoot each other instead. Your link was just some more opinions on the subject whereas I provided 12 real life examples where not only did that not happen but also lives were saved. As for the Zamudio he's a prime example that "good guys" aren't going to just open fire indiscriminately.

Just remember what Giffords is advocating is making sure that potential victims never have the ability to fight back. What i'd like to see is those who create "gun free zones" are held responsible when they don't prevent a mass killer from gaining access to that zone.

Originally Posted by August

Not quite. The discussion was on whether people should have the right to carry firearms on college campus' and the unproven assumption that in a mass shooting situation armed "good guys" would just shoot each other instead. Your link was just some more opinions on the subject whereas I provided 12 real life examples where not only did that not happen but also lives were saved. As for the Zamudio he's a prime example that "good guys" aren't going to just open fire indiscriminately.

Just remember what Giffords is advocating is making sure that potential victims never have the ability to fight back. What i'd like to see is those who create "gun free zones" are held responsible when they don't prevent a mass killer from gaining access to that zone.

And what about holding those who oppose "gun free zones" responsible for all the deaths that civilian-owned firearms cause?

[August]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

* Edit: just noticed that not all of the 12 incidents involved civilian 'good guys' anyway. I don't think anyone is arguing that U.S. law enforcement officers should be unarmed.

No three incidents didn't but in even among those:

Gross and Bridges lost valuable response time accessing their handguns because of the law school’s standing as a gun-free zone.

That doesn't take away from the other nine incidents though where mass shootings were minimized or outright prevented by civilians with a firearm.

[August]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

And what about holding those who oppose "gun free zones" responsible for all the deaths that civilian-owned firearms cause?

Isn't that what you're trying to do by disarming potential victims?

August, if you want to claim that easy access to firearms makes mass killings less likely, please provide the data. Not anecdotes, data.

[August]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

August, if you want to claim that easy access to firearms makes mass killings less likely, please provide the data. Not anecdotes, data.

I don't claim any such thing although I am beginning to doubt that any proof would satisfy you if at least nine examples aren't good enough.

What I do believe however most firmly is that gun free zones are nothing but playgrounds for mass murderers where only the potential victims are disarmed. If you can prove me wrong then do so but opinion pieces are not proof.

Originally Posted by August

I don't claim any such thing although I am beginning to doubt that any proof would satisfy you if at least nine examples aren't good enough.

What I do believe however most firmly is that gun free zones are nothing but playgrounds for mass murderers where only the potential victims are disarmed. If you can prove me wrong then do so but opinion pieces are not proof.

Your beliefs aren't proof either.

[Platapus]

It will be interesting to observe how this test case works out. I am glad it is in Texas.

[August]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Your beliefs aren't proof either.

I'm not trying to prove anything to you, just saying that in my view the "you can imagine what will happen" argument is worthless. I have provided at least 9 examples that refute it and i'm sure if I kept looking i'd find many more.

The real obvious truth here is that the only people actually prevented from carrying firearms in a gun "free" zone are the potential victims, those who don't intend to cause anyone harm in the first place and care enough about the law to obey it. Prove me wrong but show me something besides opinion pieces.

Now if you think that walling off entire colleges and installing armed guard checkpoints and metal detectors in every doorway is better response than allowing properly licensed gun owners to carry concealed like they can everywhere else then more power to you but I disagree. If you won't do the former (and so far they haven't) then you have to allow the latter or you're telling people that their lives aren't as important as your political agenda.

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

It will be interesting to observe how this test case works out. I am glad it is in Texas.

Actually Texas is joins Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah, Tennessee and Wisconsin in that regard. 23 more states allow it if authorized by the school. So far no bloodbaths resulting.