PonyFans.com

I think I should put this out there, June Jones was adamantly against campus carry.

SMUvet wrote: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

I think you and I agree more than we disagree. I am not super familiar with what training SMU PD goes through, but I know they have to be TCOLE certified which means they probably run through a standard academy like DPD would. You're thinking of their training from a military vet point of view (unless you've also gone through a police academy as well). My class I went through had a large number of military vets and also guys that did local police before. It was interesting to get their take on what we did. Either training isn't better or worse than the other, they train you to do different tasks. We weren't training to be infantry and to secure hills, etc. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to letting ex law enforcement or select members of the military to have licenses. However, the pool of people like that who would be on a campus at any given time would be very small. ESPECIALLY at a school like SMU where the student body is mostly people from a very upper class background who don't dream of careers wearing uniforms (military or LEO).

These types of events, even though they seem often because of the media, happen EXTREMELY infrequently. They account for a sliver of the homicide rate across the country.

SMUvet wrote:I think I should put this out there, June Jones was adamantly against campus carry.

HAHA, that does it, I am 100% on board with campus carry now.

However infrequently violent crimes with guns occur, it happens way more in the US than other developed nations. We need to figure out what's wrong culturally and tackle it, because it's quite embarrassing really.

whitwiki wrote:However infrequently violent crimes with guns occur, it happens way more in the US than other developed nations. We need to figure out what's wrong culturally and tackle it, because it's quite embarrassing really.

Definitely agree with that.

PerunasHoof wrote:

SMUvet wrote: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

I think you and I agree more than we disagree. I am not super familiar with what training SMU PD goes through, but I know they have to be TCOLE certified which means they probably run through a standard academy like DPD would. You're thinking of their training from a military vet point of view (unless you've also gone through a police academy as well). My class I went through had a large number of military vets and also guys that did local police before. It was interesting to get their take on what we did. Either training isn't better or worse than the other, they train you to do different tasks. We weren't training to be infantry and to secure hills, etc. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to letting ex law enforcement or select members of the military to have licenses. However, the pool of people like that who would be on a campus at any given time would be very small. ESPECIALLY at a school like SMU where the student body is mostly people from a very upper class background who don't dream of careers wearing uniforms (military or LEO).

These types of events, even though they seem often because of the media, happen EXTREMELY infrequently. They account for a sliver of the homicide rate across the country.

I think we do. The training is most likely similar. I think an SMU approval for former LEO/Combat Vet/Military LEO/Fed LEO is a great idea though.

As mentioned before, many roles a soldier or service member will play is that of a LEO. Granted the terms are different and somewhat unique they still must be familiar with laws and solving conflict. The difference being a police officer or federal officer may never have fired their weapon at an active shooter but is great at sorting out a domestic violence situation or similar. Whereas a soldier may have engaged many in a firefight but solved few domestic disputes. If we are talking about an active shooter(s) scenario I would prefer the soldier. They train far more often and have more OJT.

I think the "violent crimes' with guns filter is sort of a silly. Violent crime is embarrassing. Violent crime caused by guns is no more embarrassing than violent crime caused by toilet plungers or axes.

Sure gun violence is far more likely in a country where guns are allowed. That is a no brainer. But is violent crime overall lower? Normalize for violence and then review if weapon choice increased that. In other words, do guns increase the rate of violent crimes or are they merely an instrument? I would argue both. And I think you need to seek legislation that will decrease violent crime rates. You see what I am saying? I could nearly eradicate violent crime caused by guns tomorrow by banning guns but still not get rid of violent crime (already illegal).

Do I think that firearm access contributes to violent crimes? Yes. Firearms are require less sophisticated users than say a bow or a bomb. But do I think some people will adapt to the more sophisticated or more archaic forms of weapons? Absolutely. I think that some cultures are violent. Some countries are just violent because of a subset of that culture. Some are violent because that is a means to an end.

So when I hear people say that we could get rid of violent crime by banning guns I don't think that is accurate. I do think a small decrease in violent crime or the casualties involved could follow though. But is there a cost associated?

whitwiki wrote:However infrequently violent crimes with guns occur, it happens way more in the US than other developed nations. We need to figure out what's wrong culturally and tackle it, because it's quite embarrassing really.

The vast majority of "high profile" crimes have been committed by:
1) People with obvious mental problems;
2) People with a religious agenda; and/or
3) People with a history of violent crimes.

Instead of focusing on the how (are we going to restrict the sale of fertilizer (OKC Federal Building) or pressure cookers (Boston)), maybe we should focus on identifying people like the Sandy Hook killer and getting them into an institution.

As for other developed nations, I am not embarrassed.
England: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sout ... e-28939089
France: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5128/ ... o-go-zones
Holland: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 23371.html

Digetydog wrote: The vast majority of "high profile" crimes have been committed by:
1) People with obvious mental problems;
2) People with a religious agenda; and/or
3) People with a history of violent crimes.

...maybe we should focus on identifying people like the Sandy Hook killer and getting them into an institution.

So you are in favor of both increased mental health funding and loosening civil commitment laws? I just want to be sure I understand your position correctly.

I think a very high number of "deaths" involve Male/Female relationships, arguments involving alcohol and accidental discharge-much more likely to see that type of incident

Stallion wrote:I think a very high number of "deaths" involve Male/Female relationships, arguments involving alcohol and accidental discharge-much more likely to see that type of incident

And look at how often those things happen on college campuses

Current grad student and 10 year Army infantryman.

I'm happy with the decision.

CA Mustang wrote:

Digetydog wrote: The vast majority of "high profile" crimes have been committed by:
1) People with obvious mental problems;
2) People with a religious agenda; and/or
3) People with a history of violent crimes.

...maybe we should focus on identifying people like the Sandy Hook killer and getting them into an institution.

So you are in favor of both increased mental health funding and loosening civil commitment laws? I just want to be sure I understand your position correctly.

Yes. It is cheaper (and more humane) to send someone to a mental health facility than it is to send them to prison and to send their victims to the hospital/morgue.

The idea that we can give the people with a serious mental illness a prescription and send them into the world is idiotic.

While some of the incidents could not have been prevented, the Aurora and Sandy Hook incidents didn’t have to happen and ΓÇ£Gun ControlΓÇ¥ wasn’t the solution. Both of those men needed to be institutionalized. Unfortunately, it takes an Act of God to get someone institutionalized against their will.

Stallion wrote:I think a very high number of "deaths" involve Male/Female relationships, arguments involving alcohol and accidental discharge-much more likely to see that type of incident

True, but very few of the male/female relationship incidents involve firearms.

Although this story is a few years old, I would be the numbers haven't changed much. Vehicles and Suicide are the leading cause of death for college students. https://news.virginia.edu/content/more- ... chers-find

I don't know what Texas requires to get a concealed carry permit. In Virginia you have to pass a rather rigorous background check and pass a firearms safety and proficiency course. But also in Virginia there is no law against unconcealed weapons. You can walk down the middle of a street with a pump shot gun and there's nothing illegal about that (just discharging it). At Liberty University, the President encouraged students to conceal carry. Shootings fall into a myriad of situations. (1) Drug related. (2) Gang related. (3) Domestic disturbance (usually with an unconcealed weapon - many times not a gun - remember Lorena Bobbitt). (4) Mass shooting. Armed students can help #4, but may increase the negatives of #1 and #3. Unless of course Aggies are involved which brings in #2.

Virginia's Attorney General just unilaterally ended Virginia's concealed-carry reciprocity with 25 states. Most (if not all) states offer reciprocity with at least some other jurisdictions for concealed carry.