TexasCHLforum.com

tesla wrote:

ClarkLZeuss wrote: Maybe a back door way we could win on the campus carry issue (assuming there's problems which I pray there won't be) would be to change the law to compel businesses/schools/etc. who post 30.06 or otherwise are off-limits for CHL to employ metal detectors and armed guards at all entrances to all buildings. No more of this phoney-baloney "the sign makes us safe."

In other words, anyone who legally prevents you from defending yourself becomes legally responsible and liable to actively defend you themselves.

T3hK1w1 wrote:The trouble with using metal detectors on a college campus (aside from the massive breach of privacy) is the sheer logistical nightmare it would create. think of how many entrances there are into the college, the number of students, staff, and faculty who go on and off campus everyday, and then consider all of the pocket change, keys, pocketknives, etc they carry. Then factor in the backpacks and bags they all take with them-these would have to ALL be scanned by x-ray EVERY time a person entered campus, with the enormous lines and cost that creates. Additionally, all of the entrances and x-ray machines would have to manned by trained personnel to operate the machines and guards to make sure that nobody simply ignores the checkpoint or tries to bypass it.
I simply don't see any way of making it practical.

Excaliber wrote:History clearly shows that laws, rules, and signs do not eliminate guns from an environment unless enforced with airport style security backed by on premises armed response.

Signs alone also don't constitute deterrence. If they did, we could save a ton of money in the federal budget by eliminating TSA screening at the airport - signs prohibiting guns, bombs, knives, and more than 3oz. of liquid in a container are already there.

On the contrary, unenforced signage produces a situation where law abiding potential defenders comply, and deranged attackers don't.

kd5zex wrote:

"It’s reactive, not preventative.”

Yes, that's the point.

ml1209 wrote: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/met ... 48716.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There were times when Woods thought that maybe he should get a gun.

“Then I learned pretty fast that wouldn’t solve anything,” said Woods, who is now a graduate student at UT. “The idea that somebody could stop a school shooting with a gun is impossible. It’s reactive, not preventative.”

Opponents say that if guns are allowed on campus, students and faculty will live in fear of classmates and colleagues, not knowing who might pull a gun over a drunken dorm argument or a poor grade.

The idea has met stiff opposition at the University of Texas, which has its own history of shooting violence. Charles Whitman’s 1966 rifle attack from the top of the university tower killed 16 people and wounded dozens more. It was the worst campus shooting until the Virginia Tech bloodbath, but unlike the VT shooting the UT shooting was stopped by people with guns.

“It’s a recipe for disaster,” said Brian Malte, state legislation and politics director for the Brady Campaign.

Woods, who wore a maroon “Virginia Tech Class of 2007” T-shirt during an interview, said he hasn’t heard from any survivor of the Virginia Tech shooting who supports guns on campus.

He figures a classroom shooting would be too sudden to stop, even if a student or teacher had a gun.

“Everything happens too quickly,” Woods said. “You either play dead or you are dead.”