Home » CON: Guns on campus not a good idea » Unverified Comments

Comments

  • I keep hearing Butler say no, no, no, but how come he can't back this up with a logical arguement against concealed carry? I have now heard his position a couple of times. "We want to leave it up to locally elected officials". Why? I would love to hear Butler give valid reasons why we shouldn't allow concealed carry on campus? A good strong case against it. A position that far outweighs the consequences of not having concealed holders on campus. Please Butler something more than "Let's leave it up to locally elected officials"? What does that mean? And why would they be the deciding factor? They don't currently set state law, and this isn't a local issue. It's a state law.

    June 6, 2011 at 1:41 p.m.
  • As I understand the proposed law has failed to pass. Thank God.

    June 6, 2011 at 10:10 a.m.
  • @lawdawg...This is only one of many he has made that question his state...However, you can say ...he does get reelected...

    June 6, 2011 at 10:02 a.m.
  • Open carry makes a polite society.

    If you're willing to trade your Constitutional freedom to bear arms for the security facade of being on a totally disarmed campus, you don't deserve your freedom or your security.

    Totally disarmed areas sound like an EXCELLENT shooting gallery for the crazies...

    June 6, 2011 at 9:53 a.m.
  • There is a downside

    http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/texaskey.htm.

    June 6, 2011 at 9:34 a.m.
  • lawdawger....it was a stupid joke, made by a stupid joke.

    June 6, 2011 at 8:30 a.m.
  • This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

    June 6, 2011 at 8:23 a.m.
  • Whitman wasn't using a handgun for his sniper attack either.

    June 6, 2011 at 8:01 a.m.
  • Point one: the reason Whitman didn't kill more people is that a number of citizens had rifles in their vehicles. They used these weapons to suppress Whitman's fire until the two people (only 1 was a cop) could get into the tower and shoot Whitman.

    Point two: why do you think people would act differently outside campus than they do on campus? People over the age of 21 can apply for and obtain a CHL to carry anywhere in Victoria's streets and businesses now (ever since 1995). The crime statistics on people with CHL's is so low as to be statistically insignificant (that means so few as to not be measurable in statistical terminology). If they're not walking around shooting people now, why would they do it on a college campus? The same hysterical arguments were made in 1995 when the concealed weapons bill was passed. Blood in the streets! Gunfights at the OK Corral! All this was shouted at the people to make them afraid. Never happened. Why? Because people that go through the time and effort (and background checks with the FBI, DPS, & maybe the CIA for all I know) are good honest citizens.

    As a faculty member at UHV, I'm not concerned that a few of my students might carry concealed in my classroom. It's the ones who don't have a CHL that are carrying NOW illegally that bother me.

    Oh, for those that don't know: the UHV security forces are non-commissioned (that means they don't & can't carry firearms). Would that make YOU feel safer if you worked there, knowing that? Since they also go home before I do, it wouldn't do much good if they were armed. As one man said, I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy. The only way to be secure is to hire your own security guard and have him follow you around all day and night. Oh, BTW, hope he's loyal!!!!!

    June 6, 2011 at 3:38 a.m.