PonyFans.com

BigT3x wrote:Bottom line: Right now, if you see someone walking around campus with a gun who isn't a cop you know something is wrong. The cops know something is wrong. It's straightforward.

Usually the criminal does not show you the gun until he starts shooting. And they usually start shooting where no cops are around. Again, talking about professor carry not student carry.

CalallenStang wrote:I think there is less risk to professor carry

Right Calallen, just talking about professor carry.

Just don't let our quarterbacks have one and you know why

Why not. Many have been proficient at hitting the opposition.

I think if people realized how many carry weapons concealed on their person at the boulevard on campus in bars around town they probably would be nervous. Making or changing laws will never stop this.

BTW concealed handgun licenses / classes are an all time high right now!

CalallenStang wrote:
I think there is less risk to professor carry

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/us/de ... sippi.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Un ... e_shooting
The Unibomber was briefly a college professor.


Not to be a [deleted], but college professors tend to be a volatile bunch. Unfortunately, genius and madness often go together.

Digetydog wrote:

CalallenStang wrote:
I think there is less risk to professor carry

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/us/de ... sippi.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Un ... e_shooting
The Unibomber was briefly a college professor.


Not to be a [deleted], but college professors tend to be a volatile bunch. Unfortunately, genius and madness often go together.

Yes - for sure, but the risk of potentially fatal accidents is diminished

Quick point to make: If SMU were to institute select ability for professors to carry firearms, who do you think the first person to get shot is going to be when an active shooter enters a classroom?

Also, SMUvet made a point earlier about vets being able to get CHL's. I have no problem with people who actually had advanced infantry instruction or were in a combat roles getting permits. But the majority of the military are in support roles and don't touch a weapon after basic. I don't think we need to be giving carte blanche permits just because someone is a vet.

Bottom line, we're going to agree to disagree. In my opinion, we would see far more of these types of results rather than someone who heroically saves the day by taking on one or two shooters (who are typically armed with more powerful weaponry than a 9mm Glock).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... e-charges/

Or, just because you have a CHL doesn't mean you mean will save the day.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/crime ... ting-spree

Again, some Texas high schools have this practice going on right now with no issues. Bottom line is that is now public knowledge that SMU is a gun free zone and that means shooters can conceal a gun walk on campus and fire away at sitting ducks. Anytime a shooter know there might be some type of resistance they usually don;t attack that target. You can look at any state that does not have conceal carry licenses and their crime rate is lower than those that do not. And the main thing is that most mass shooting take place in GUN FREE zones because they are easy pickings for shooters.

Rebel10 wrote:Again, some Texas high schools have this practice going on right now with no issues. Bottom line is that is now public knowledge that SMU is a gun free zone and that means shooters can conceal a gun walk on campus and fire away at sitting ducks. Anytime a shooter know there might be some type of resistance they usually don;t attack that target. You can look at any state that does not have conceal carry licenses and their crime rate is lower than those that do not. And the main thing is that most mass shooting take place in GUN FREE zones because they are easy pickings for shooters.

Do you have any proof that CHL's are the causation for the decrease in crime? Without proof that is the DIRECT cause for less crime that's a good example of a logical fallacy. You watch the Simpsons? In the Bear Patrol episode, Lisa convinces Homer that a rock repels tigers because there aren't any tigers around, so thus the rock must work right?

And you are correct that some districts now have some teachers who are armed:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/more-texas- ... 1408986620

The training is a lot more intensive than a standard CHL class. My original point was that I don't think CHL holders should be able to carry in classrooms/on campus. The class and training are ridiculously amateurish. If you don't believe me, please go take the class. You will hear the dumbest questions being asked by people who have no business carrying a weapon around.

PerunasHoof wrote:

Rebel10 wrote:Again, some Texas high schools have this practice going on right now with no issues. Bottom line is that is now public knowledge that SMU is a gun free zone and that means shooters can conceal a gun walk on campus and fire away at sitting ducks. Anytime a shooter know there might be some type of resistance they usually don;t attack that target. You can look at any state that does not have conceal carry licenses and their crime rate is lower than those that do not. And the main thing is that most mass shooting take place in GUN FREE zones because they are easy pickings for shooters.

Do you have any proof that CHL's are the causation for the decrease in crime? Without proof that is the DIRECT cause for less crime that's a good example of a logical fallacy. You watch the Simpsons? In the Bear Patrol episode, Lisa convinces Homer that a rock repels tigers because there aren't any tigers around, so thus the rock must work right?

And you are correct that some districts now have some teachers who are armed:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/more-texas- ... 1408986620

The training is a lot more intensive than a standard CHL class. My original point was that I don't think CHL holders should be able to carry in classrooms/on campus. The class and training are ridiculously amateurish. If you don't believe me, please go take the class. You will hear the dumbest questions being asked by people who have no business carrying a weapon around.

And my point is have the professors go the the same more intensive training as the teachers.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ry-laws-do

I am a conservative and a republican but what you just linked to is obviously biased. It is a self described conservative magazine for "conservative news, commentary, and opinion." Do you really think they are going to write an article that is pro gun control?

The agency that I worked for is the one that authored the study on school shootings, so I am well versed in the topic.

At the end of the day, SMU made it's decision. I agree with it, you don't. We can agree that neither of us want anything to happen at SMU.

Have you taken the CHL class?

PerunasHoof wrote:I am a conservative and a republican but what you just linked to is obviously biased. It is a self described conservative magazine for "conservative news, commentary, and opinion." Do you really think they are going to write an article that is pro gun control?

The agency that I worked for is the one that authored the study on school shootings, so I am well versed in the topic.

At the end of the day, SMU made it's decision. I agree with it, you don't. We can agree that neither of us want anything to happen at SMU.

Have you taken the CHL class?

Statistics are simple in states where there are more CHL's there is less crime. Can you prove the opposite?

I said the professors should go through the more intense training like the teachers go through not just CHL training.

Rebel10 wrote:

PerunasHoof wrote:I am a conservative and a republican but what you just linked to is obviously biased. It is a self described conservative magazine for "conservative news, commentary, and opinion." Do you really think they are going to write an article that is pro gun control?

The agency that I worked for is the one that authored the study on school shootings, so I am well versed in the topic.

At the end of the day, SMU made it's decision. I agree with it, you don't. We can agree that neither of us want anything to happen at SMU.

Have you taken the CHL class?

I said the professors should go through the more intense training like the teachers go through not just CHL training.

So you do agree with the ban on CHL holders having weapons on campus?

Most people in the military are support. This is true. This is also true of the SMU vets on campus. So I would not advocate for all Vets being authorized to carry on campus. But, there are also former SpecOps, infantry and military LEO persons on campus.

So if you would trust campus police and even local police to respond to the situation but not people with more training and more trigger time then... If you could have an officer/building that would be great IMO. There are definitely some obstacles and unknowns in regards to implementing this.

The majority of shootings don't take place with rifles or shotguns. They take place with handguns because they are easy to conceal. One person with decent training could easily take down an amateur with a firearm. I mean the bullets are not fighting each other in the air. A .22 could take down a shooter with a full auto .50 cal. The semi-auto rifles that have been used recently in shootings are small caliber rifles (223/5.56).

A person with a firearm doesn't have to shoot and kill the active shooter to be useful. Just showing presence is enough to dissuade. Anyway to disrupt their sick plan is a success.

I mean it is really hard to prove that CHLs or firearms positively contribute in anyway. Causal inference is really the only way to measure it. But that is also used in all types of scientific research. Doesn't mean it isn't true. Just means they are somehow both occurring. But there could definitely be another reason for the decrease in crime rate.

I think there are two factions on carrying.
The first:
-More guns = more risk of accidents. This frequency and danger could be greater than that of an active shooter
-Plus guns are scary

The second:
-Gun free zones only mean rational law abiding people will comply. Dangerous people are not bound by the laws of man but all are bound by the laws of reality
-Guns are technology