|
|
Post by Noble Work on Feb 25, 2011 12:53:05 GMT -5
ok what is a CHL? and how does it differ from a normal fire arm license?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rare_Commodity on Feb 25, 2011 12:54:59 GMT -5
No all of Texas is not country filled with Cowboys. No I don't support guns being toted to school.However, I do support the right to bear arms (within your home). 1. Why don't you support guns being "toted" to school? 2. You support the right to keep arms if you are solely referring to owning and using on ones property. The right to bear means the right to carry off of your property. Do you support the right to keep and bear arms? 1) School -since you have to be at least 21 this law will not effect k-12 mostly college campuses. The current mentality of this generation TO ME is no ready for guns on school. Too much bullying and low self-esteem. Yes you can take the CHL class (super easy) and get licensed that does not mean that you are mature enough to handle a weapon. 2) Teh law is already written so I can't change it. I support a person being able to bear arms at their home. No I don't think you should be able to have guns in your car or be able to carry them with you in different places. The purpose is for self-defense; sometimes that line is crossed and a person says they are defening themselves when really they are taking the law into their own hands. |
|
|
|
Post by Kyng of JDs on Feb 25, 2011 13:49:28 GMT -5
ok what is a CHL? and how does it differ from a normal fire arm license? CHL = Concealed Handgun License. In Texas, and most other states BTW, you do not need a license to purchase or own a firearm (I assume that this is what you mean by normal license). In Texas you may carry in your car as an extension of your homestead. You need the license to carry on your person. |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Feb 25, 2011 14:00:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Kyng of JDs on Feb 25, 2011 14:31:48 GMT -5
1. Why don't you support guns being "toted" to school? 2. You support the right to keep arms if you are solely referring to owning and using on ones property. The right to bear means the right to carry off of your property. Do you support the right to keep and bear arms? 1) School -since you have to be at least 21 this law will not effect k-12 mostly college campuses. The current mentality of this generation TO ME is no ready for guns on school. Too much bullying and low self-esteem. Yes you can take the CHL class (super easy) and get licensed that does not mean that you are mature enough to handle a weapon. Who determines the maturity? You? Me? OOA? Maturity is arbitrary. You cannot pass a law based on an arbitrary metric. You do point out the CHL class, which is fairly straightforward. But, passing the background check in addition to the class is much harder. FBI and 50 state check cannot reveal anything other than a class b misdemeanor (Note: most states just require no felony; Texas is considered OVERLY RESTRICTIVE in this area).
The legislature has determined that if you haven't done anything stupid to get convicted by 21, then you are mature enough to be entrusted with the responsibility of a firearm.
2) Teh law is already written so I can't change it. I support a person being able to bear arms at their home. No I don't think you should be able to have guns in your car or be able to carry them with you in different places. The purpose is for self-defense; sometimes that line is crossed and a person says they are defening themselves when really they are taking the law into their own hands. I completely disagree with your first statement. The origin of concealed carry in Texas arises from the Luby's shooting in Killeen. For those who don't remember, a guy drove his truck into a Luby's and started shooting people. This teacher was eating with her parents. The killer executed several people as they were trying to escape, the teacher's parents included. The teacher had a weapon in her car but due to the law at the time, she was unable to carry on her person. She ran for state representative with changing the carry law as her platform. She was elected and changed the law to a version of the law we now live under. Don't say you can't change the law.
Again, pointing to the origin of the current law, the concept of self defense extends outside of the home. So long as one does not discount that responsibility, then they have the right to defend themselves. To address your final point, the stand your ground law presumes self defense, but the district attorney has plenty of procedural tools to ensure that murder does not pass for self-defense. The law cannot be taken into ones own hands. Oh, BTW defending a law suit in Texas cost $5,000 at a minimum. So, if you shoot, you better be in a situation where that $5,000 bullet is worth it. |
|
|
|
Post by Rare_Commodity on Feb 25, 2011 14:39:10 GMT -5
Obviously society sets the rules to determine ones maturity, thus different states having different legal age limits. Your argument is two fold. Just because a person can pass a background check does not mean that they should be entrusted with a firearm but based on current law thats what society believes. Current laws in place don't always serve the greatest good but our government feels at the time they do.
Maybe I shouldn't say I can't change it but rather that is not my platform or area of interest to advocate for. We were having a discussion. I see your views and understand what you are saying but I still believe guns should not be allowed on schools.
|
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Feb 25, 2011 14:47:31 GMT -5
Swear TX is in a time warp... trapped in 1887 Basically. I think people are taking the "right to bear arms" thing a little too far. When this was written, it was during a time where the environment was still untamed (i.e. wild animals everywhere, people would hunt for food, laws in certain places were either non-existent or very lax). In that type of environment, I can see the need to carry a gun everywhere (i.e. on the Oregon trail and you encounter bears, wolves, etc., etc.). That was understandable. Now, that is not our environment or society. I'm not understanding the need to carry a gun everywhere. If you need to have a gun to go to the mall, then maybe you shouldn't frequent that mall. If you need a gun to go to church, you might need to find another church, etc. I mean like I said, we already had two gun shooting last week at the university where I work. We were on full lock down and everything. So if everyone had a gun, or more students on campus with a gun, can you imagine how that would have been if a student carrying a handgun heard gun shots behind him? Instead of ducking for cover, reaching for their gun? I just don't like it, period. You don't need a gun in class. |
|
|
|
Post by Rare_Commodity on Feb 25, 2011 14:48:57 GMT -5
^ I agree with this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kyng of JDs on Feb 25, 2011 15:51:10 GMT -5
Swear TX is in a time warp... trapped in 1887 Basically. I think people are taking the "right to bear arms" thing a little too far. When this was written, it was during a time where the environment was still untamed (i.e. wild animals everywhere, people would hunt for food, laws in certain places were either non-existent or very lax). In that type of environment, I can see the need to carry a gun everywhere (i.e. on the Oregon trail and you encounter bears, wolves, etc., etc.). That was understandable. Julie, this is simply not true. The Wild West regulations you refer to were MORE restrictive than any concealed carry law today. Law enforcement had the authority to seize any firearm upon entrance of a municipal limit. Movies don't glamorize the gun storage industry of the "wild west." Entire business were built on the gun check (check the gun in when going to town and check it out on the way out for a fee). And just so you know, Texas was late to the concealed carry table.
www.txchia.org/history.htm
Who started this "wild west" carry movement? Yep you got it Georgia and Indiana.
Now, that is not our environment or society. I'm not understanding the need to carry a gun everywhere. If you need to have a gun to go to the mall, then maybe you shouldn't frequent that mall. If you need a gun to go to church, you might need to find another church, etc. See my comment about need earlier. Who gets to determine what you "need"? Do black folks need guns at all? Do black folks need jobs? Do black folks need cars? Usually when you resort to the "need" argument, you have intellectually tarnished your position. Perhaps you could ask whether the risk of danger outweighs the personal privilege of carrying. But that becomes a statistical argument rather than an emotional one. I mean like I said, we already had two gun shooting last week at the university where I work. We were on full lock down and everything. So if everyone had a gun, or more students on campus with a gun, can you imagine how that would have been if a student carrying a handgun heard gun shots behind him? Instead of ducking for cover, reaching for their gun? You are assuming a "run to the gun" mentality. That is absurd. Anyone who has had an ounce of training knows that cover and concealment are priority one when a threat emerges. This argument is a plea to emotion similar to the the blood running in the streets argument in the original post. It has no basis in fact.I just don't like it, period. You don't need a gun in class.
Now that is intellectually honest. |
|
|
|
Post by Noble Work on Feb 25, 2011 17:40:16 GMT -5
Because if a student gets pissed off, like they normally they do when something isn't going their way, didn't get a grade they thought they shouldn't have, have to take more classes then they want to, etc., etc., I can just see the final outcome of that scenerio and I wouldn't want to be anywhere around anything like that. Plus, why should a student need a gun going to class? While your scenario is certainly terrifying, I think you would be pleasantly surprised at how remote that would be with a valid CHL carrier. So are you saying a person with a valid CHL is more responsible and make better choices than someone without one? What about all the people who were shot and killed by 15/20 year police veterans? Do these policemen need to take that CHL training?As a *former* student with a CHL I carried as far as I could. Your question raises the need canard, which starts with a false premise. The State trusts me with the responsibility of handling a firearm responsibly. The proper question is why should a campus restrict that right? The campus is not restricting a person to carry. You just can't bring it on they campus. Maybe the campus (s) are trying to protect it's students So that I can honor your question with an answer in light of the above, a student would "need" the protection on the way to and from class just as said student would "need" the protection anywhere else. So just give all the 21 year old (who qualify) guns to carry on campus? |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Feb 25, 2011 21:32:42 GMT -5
Look, Kyng of JDs, I didn't ask you to legally breakdown my stance. That is my stance regardless if you find it intellecutilazing or not. And I didn't mention the wild west, you did. I'm talking about how one could have threats from nature, I.e. Wild animals, thus seeing the need to carry a gun everywhere for survival (you know, life before the industrial revolution)In this day in age, if one finds the need to take a gun everywhere they go, they might should stay home. Spare me the lawyer rhetoric. This is not law school, nor are you in court  |
|
|
|
Post by Kyng of JDs on Feb 26, 2011 9:34:01 GMT -5
While your scenario is certainly terrifying, I think you would be pleasantly surprised at how remote that would be with a valid CHL carrier. So are you saying a person with a valid CHL is more responsible and make better choices than someone without one? What about all the people who were shot and killed by 15/20 year police veterans? Do these policemen need to take that CHL training?Yes. I think that police forces do not stress combat shooting enough. In my area, most forces only require patrol to qualify with 50 rounds per year at a stationary target. Most forces teach a version of the CHL class at their respective academies but very few teach refreshers or reinforcement training. Personally, I think most forces weapon training is insufficient but that is a whole other issue. As noted above, the conviction rate among CHL holders is less than the conviction rate among non-CHL-holders. So I would say yes, CHL holders are better decision makers.
As a *former* student with a CHL I carried as far as I could. Your question raises the need canard, which starts with a false premise. The State trusts me with the responsibility of handling a firearm responsibly. The proper question is why should a campus restrict that right? The campus is not restricting a person to carry. You just can't bring it on they campus. Maybe the campus (s) are trying to protect it's students I am missing your point here. If you say I can't have something when I otherwise could, isn't that a restriction?So that I can honor your question with an answer in light of the above, a student would "need" the protection on the way to and from class just as said student would "need" the protection anywhere else. So just give all the 21 year old (who qualify) guns to carry on campus?This question is more loaded than Rick James at a cocaine refiners convention. Yes, allow the 21 year olds who have a valid CHL to carry on campus as they are allowed throughout this and many other states. (BTW, I liked the give them guns hyperbole) |
|
|
|
Post by Kyng of JDs on Feb 26, 2011 9:47:55 GMT -5
Look, Kyng of JDs, I didn't ask you to legally breakdown my stance. That is my stance regardless if you find it intellecutilazing or not. And I didn't mention the wild west, you did. I'm talking about how one could have threats from nature, I.e. Wild animals, thus seeing the need to carry a gun everywhere for survival (you know, life before the industrial revolution)In this day in age, if one finds the need to take a gun everywhere they go, they might should stay home. Spare me the lawyer rhetoric. This is not law school, nor are you in court I am not breaking down your stance. You took issue with the fact that my state is moving to allow guns on campus. Aside from a feeling and an opinion, you have not supported why this issue is bad. I assumed that by posting this, you wanted to discuss this issue. But, I guess the assume adage applies here. My point is that if you are going to let fly with disparaging comments, then be ready to defend you position in a debate on the topic. I presented facts that oppose your position and support mine. I would love for you to do the same. That is not arguing or lawyer rhetoric, that is the healthy exchange of information that develops knowledge. In fact, the emotional argument upon which you are basing your stance is more akin to lawyer argument. BTW, that need canard showed up again. |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Feb 26, 2011 12:04:49 GMT -5
you STILL don't get it JD, you starting to take the tone of another poster on here, but I digress. I did post this for information wise, and I guess because this is your state, you are taking it personal.
I'm also so secure on my stance on things that I don't need to post back up information to suppoirt it. I'm also not trying to persuade anyone either, but just stating my opinion.
You go ahead and have your legal debate with those who are expressing their opinions. Go ahead and post statues, etc. But if I remember correctly and opinion is just that, an opinion. I'm bowing out this convo with you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rare_Commodity on Feb 26, 2011 12:57:08 GMT -5
Look, Kyng of JDs, I didn't ask you to legally breakdown my stance. That is my stance regardless if you find it intellecutilazing or not. And I didn't mention the wild west, you did. I'm talking about how one could have threats from nature, I.e. Wild animals, thus seeing the need to carry a gun everywhere for survival (you know, life before the industrial revolution)In this day in age, if one finds the need to take a gun everywhere they go, they might should stay home. Spare me the lawyer rhetoric. This is not law school, nor are you in court [/b] ^^^THIS!!! I use this board for fun and learning new stuff....I don't want to feel like I am in a classroom. |
|
|
|
Post by Rare_Commodity on Feb 26, 2011 12:58:35 GMT -5
you STILL don't get it JD, you starting to take the tone of another poster on here, but I digress. I did post this for information wise, and I guess because this is your state, you are taking it personal. I'm also so secure on my stance on things that I don't need to post back up information to suppoirt it. I'm also not trying to persuade anyone either, but just stating my opinion. You go ahead and have your legal debate with those who are expressing their opinions. Go ahead and post statues, etc. But if I remember correctly and opinion is just that, an opinion. I'm bowing out this convo with you. *giggles at the bolded* Is this a courtroom or forum board LOL. |
|
|
|
Post by QUIET As Kept on Feb 26, 2011 14:50:20 GMT -5
I know you're pretty new here, but understand this is how OOA gets down when it comes to serious discussions (and has been getting down since looooong before you joined). So if you want to be on OOA just for fun, you can either 1) stay out of serious discussions completely (which you'll notice several OOAers do), 2) come to serious discussions prepared to support your opinion/stance with legitimate sources, or 3) come to serious discussions with no supporting info, and be prepared to have people to call you on it. Look, Kyng of JDs, I didn't ask you to legally breakdown my stance. That is my stance regardless if you find it intellecutilazing or not. And I didn't mention the wild west, you did. I'm talking about how one could have threats from nature, I.e. Wild animals, thus seeing the need to carry a gun everywhere for survival (you know, life before the industrial revolution)In this day in age, if one finds the need to take a gun everywhere they go, they might should stay home. Spare me the lawyer rhetoric. This is not law school, nor are you in court [/b] ^^^THIS!!! I use this board for fun and learning new stuff....I don't want to feel like I am in a classroom. [/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Feb 26, 2011 17:09:05 GMT -5
That's quite interesting Quiet. I've been a member longer then you and I vividly remember a person being able to discuss something that's of a serious nature without posting a reference page to back up why they are saying what they are saying. This whole reference what you speak thing was not apart of the board's culture at the onset. This is a discussion board, regardless of which section you're in, and this "site where you are getting your opinion from" is laughable at best. If your posting a newspaper article or something of that nature to start a discussion, yes post where you got it from. But references for an OPINION? I don't think so, I'm not doing it. This is not my graduate school and this board will not grant me a doctorate. And I will always carry the stance that you don't need to post references for an opinion  |
|
|
|
Post by QUIET As Kept on Feb 26, 2011 17:51:59 GMT -5
You're probably right...as posters come & go, its only natural for the vibe & traditions of a discussion board to evolve. My issue was moreso that she's a new poster who just came to the board, and apparently has an issue with the way the board operates, but continues to participate and then feels some kind of way when she keeps getting the same feedback. It's like rolling up in somebody else's house, and telling them you don't agree with how they clean their house, but you keep coming over anyway. This is what we do, and this is how we did it when you joined. If that's not what you wanted, why join? That's quite interesting Quiet. I've been a member longer then you and I vividly remember a person being able to discuss something that's of a serious nature without posting a reference page to back up why they are saying what they are saying. This whole reference what you speak thing was not apart of the board's culture at the onset. This is a discussion board, regardless of which section you're in, and this "site where you are getting your opinion from" is laughable at best. If your posting a newspaper article or something of that nature to start a discussion, yes post where you got it from. But references for an OPINION? I don't think so, I'm not doing it. This is not my graduate school and this board will not grant me a doctorate. And I will always carry the stance that you don't need to post references for an opinion |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Feb 26, 2011 18:32:53 GMT -5
please note: your house scenrio had me cracking up!
I see and understand your stance.
|
|
|
|
Post by QUIET As Kept on Feb 26, 2011 18:38:59 GMT -5
*takes a bow* I do what I can lol please note: your house scenrio had me cracking up! |
|
|
|
Post by Rare_Commodity on Feb 26, 2011 18:41:59 GMT -5
You're probably right...as posters come & go, its only natural for the vibe & traditions of a discussion board to evolve. My issue was moreso that she's a new poster who just came to the board, and apparently has an issue with the way the board operates, but continues to participate and then feels some kind of way when she keeps getting the same feedback. It's like rolling up in somebody else's house, and telling them you don't agree with how they clean their house, but you keep coming over anyway. This is what we do, and this is how we did it when you joined. If that's not what you wanted, why join? That's quite interesting Quiet. I've been a member longer then you and I vividly remember a person being able to discuss something that's of a serious nature without posting a reference page to back up why they are saying what they are saying. This whole reference what you speak thing was not apart of the board's culture at the onset. This is a discussion board, regardless of which section you're in, and this "site where you are getting your opinion from" is laughable at best. If your posting a newspaper article or something of that nature to start a discussion, yes post where you got it from. But references for an OPINION? I don't think so, I'm not doing it. This is not my graduate school and this board will not grant me a doctorate. And I will always carry the stance that you don't need to post references for an opinion I joined because I chose to join. Its a open forum board open to anyone. I can't change anyone and the way that they post but if I don't want to engage in the type of debate or discussion in the manner that they then I have the ability to say so. Regardless if I am new or old I didn't tell anyone how to post talk how you like but when I am stating my opinion I don't feel the need to support it to the extent that others do. Your right but this is a public house so they can be them and I will continue to be me but you will treat me the way I want to be treated. Yes I will continue to come around haven't had any problems thus far. Anyways I digress people make issues out of things that are not that serious. Have a blessed day! |
|
|
|
Post by QUIET As Kept on Feb 26, 2011 18:52:29 GMT -5
And again I repeat... ...if you want to be on OOA just for fun, you can either 1) stay out of serious discussions completely (which you'll notice several OOAers do), 2) come to serious discussions prepared to support your opinion/stance with legitimate sources, or 3) come to serious discussions with no supporting info, and be prepared to have people to call you on it. I joined because I chose to join. Its a open forum board open to anyone. I can't change anyone and the way that they post but if I don't want to engage in the type of debate or discussion in the manner that they then I have the ability to say so. Regardless if I am new or old I didn't tell anyone how to post talk how you like but when I am stating my opinion I don't feel the need to support it to the extent that others do. Your right but this is a public house so they can be them and I will continue to be me but you will treat me the way I want to be treated. Yes I will continue to come around haven't had any problems thus far. Anyways I digress people make issues out of things that are not that serious. Have a blessed day! |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Feb 28, 2011 11:27:32 GMT -5
...JD, you starting to take the tone of another poster on here, but I digress... #shotsfired |
|
|
|
Post by Bunny Hop on Feb 28, 2011 11:36:09 GMT -5
Mall, gas station, on or off a college campus, etc...it's all the same to me. A lot of people have permits/licenses but that means nothing to me. Folks gets guns and think they're going to go cowboy when isht hits the fan...yeah right. I remember college and how stupid people act...throwing guns in the mix is not a good thing. I would not feel any safer at school knowing the dude next to me in class was carrying a gun. But this is Texas and they are on some other isht anyway, LOL. I think you are painting with a pretty broad brush here. I have no thought or desire to go "cowboy," whatever that means. Most people with permits that I know desire to never use the weapon. Understanding that this is anecdotal, I am only using it to counter your anecdote. Statistically, in Texas, CHL holders are far safer than the general population. www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htmSo, while you may not feel safer with the guy next to you carrying a gun (assuming he is a legal CHL holder), statistics say that you should. <---didn't say everyone, all or Kyng but did say "a lot of people" <---still not buying it <---thinks that you should transfer if you feel the need to carry a gun to a Chemistry class or keep one in your dorm room <---all the pro stats won't change her mind |
|
|
|
Post by Southie on Feb 28, 2011 15:04:16 GMT -5
WTHeck Texas?  www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Texas-poised-to-pass-bill-allowing-guns-on-campus-1022488.phpAUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas is preparing to give college students and professors the right to carry guns on campus, adding momentum to a national campaign to open this part of society to firearms. More than half the members of the Texas House have signed on as co-authors of a measure directing universities to allow concealed handguns. The Senate passed a similar bill in 2009 and is expected to do so again. Republican Gov. Rick Perry, who sometimes packs a pistol when he jogs, has said he's in favor of the idea. Texas has become a prime battleground for the issue because of its gun culture and its size, with 38 public universities and more than 500,000 students. It would become the second state, following Utah, to pass such a broad-based law. Colorado gives colleges the option and several have allowed handguns. Supporters of the legislation argue that gun violence on campuses, such as the mass shootings at Virginia Tech in 2007 and Northern Illinois in 2008, show that the best defense against a gunman is students who can shoot back. "It's strictly a matter of self-defense," said Republican state Sen. Jeff Wentworth. "I don't ever want to see repeated on a Texas college campus what happened at Virginia Tech, where some deranged, suicidal madman goes into a building and is able to pick off totally defenseless kids like sitting ducks." Until the Virginia Tech incident, the worst college shooting in U.S. history occurred at the University of Texas, when sniper Charles Whitman went to the top of the administration tower in 1966 and killed 16 people and wounded dozens. Last September, a University of Texas student fired several shots from an assault rifle before killing himself. Similar firearms measures have been proposed in about a dozen other states, but all face strong opposition, especially from college leaders. In Oklahoma, all 25 public college and university presidents declared their opposition to a concealed carry proposal. "There is no scenario where allowing concealed weapons on college campuses will do anything other than create a more dangerous environment for students, faculty, staff and visitors," Oklahoma Chancellor of Higher Education Glen Johnson said in January. University of Texas President William Powers has opposed concealed handguns on campus, saying the mix of students, guns and campus parties is too volatile. Guns occupy a special place in Texas culture. Politicians often tout owning a gun as essential to being Texan. Concealed handgun license holders are allowed to skip the metal detectors that scan Capitol visitors for guns, knives and other contraband. Guns on campus bills have been rejected in 23 states since 2007, but gun control activists acknowledge it will be difficult to stop the Texas bill from passing this year. "Things do look bleak," said Colin Goddard, assistant director of federal legislation for the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, who was in Austin recently to lobby against the Texas bills. Goddard was a student at Virginia Tech when he was shot four times in his French class. Student Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people, including 10 in Goddard's classroom, before shooting himself. Goddard dismisses the idea that another student with a gun could have stopped the killer. "People tell me that if they would have been there, they would have shot that guy. That offends me," Goddard said. "People want to be the hero, I understand that. They play video games and they think they understand the reality. It's nothing like that." But Derek Titus, a senior at Texas A&M who has a state license to carry a concealed handgun, said someone with a gun that day could have improved the chances of survival. "Gun-free zones are shooting galleries for the mass murderers," Titus said. "We do not feel that we must rely on the police or security forces to defend our lives." Texas enacted its concealed handgun law in 1995, allowing people 21 or older to carry weapons if they pass a training course and a background check. The state had 461,724 license holders as of Dec. 31, according to the state Department of Public Safety. Businesses, schools and churches can set rules banning guns on their premises. On college campuses, guns are prohibited in buildings, dorms and certain grounds around them. Opponents of campus gun rights say students and faculty would live in fear of their classmates and colleagues, not knowing who might pull a gun over a poor grade, a broken romance or a drunken fraternity argument. Frankie Shulkin, a first-year law student at the University of Texas, said he doesn't think he'd feel safer if other students in his classes had guns. "If I was taking an exam and knew the person next to me had one, I don't know how comfortable I would feel," Shulkin said. "I am in favor of guns rights and your typical conservative guy, but the classroom thing bugs me." Wentworth said he heard the "blood on the streets" warnings when Texas first passed the concealed handgun law. "They said we'd have shootouts at every intersection," he said. "None of that has happened." This right here is just plain not good. Chicago has already way too many violent acts in the recent years, so adding this tidbit would NOT be a good idea. Let's see...The Northern University incident in Dekalb, Il??? Nope. |
|
|
|
Post by Noble Work on Feb 28, 2011 16:52:12 GMT -5
....the hayle happened to this discussion?
|
|
|
|
Post by Noble Work on Feb 28, 2011 17:07:47 GMT -5
oh ok so the 21 year old CHL carriers are smarter than 21 year old non-CHL carriers because they make better decisions? For starters They took the class and the other ones didn't. So that means the CHL carriers know how to defend themselves when there's a gunman on the loose on campus. |
|
|
|
Post by Bunny Hop on Feb 28, 2011 19:46:56 GMT -5
I took an Africana Studies class once and did very well...clearly I'm an expert on Africa now!!
ETA: If you're looking for some legal debate complete with stats and sources then you may want to find a board or a group of people that are way more serious about this issue or gun rights in general. I know I just don't care that much about this issue to start looking up legal jargon and trying to find stats so we can have a debate. It's not even that serious to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Mar 1, 2011 11:03:27 GMT -5
I took an Africana Studies class once and did very well...clearly I'm an expert on Africa now!! ETA: If you're looking for some legal debate complete with stats and sources then you may want to find a board or a group of people that are way more serious about this issue or gun rights in general. I know I just don't care that much about this issue to start looking up legal jargon and trying to find stats so we can have a debate. It's not even that serious to me. THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL! This explains what happened to this discussion, Level. A certain poster decided to make this discussion very uninteresting with their jargon, stats, and figures, and tried (please noticed I said TRIED) to belittle because folks didn't feel the need to cite resources for their opinion and how they feel about the topic. There is always one  Exhalt Bun!  |
|
{=}http://s2.images.proboards.com/cool.gif{/=}
