TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.paisano-online.com/opinion/g ... -1.1915497" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Poorly written editorial...also has a poll concerning guns on campus.

Thanks, I replied

If UTSA students feel that Martial Arts are a match against a gunman on campus, they are wrong.

John Woods, attended Virginia Tech when Cho shot people.
John lost 2 Martial Arts students to Cho. Martial arts isn't a match against an armed attacker.

Government compiled reports show that the majority of the time, Students and staff/faculty are the "first responders" much like bystanders were in Tucson. Jared in Tucson used those "foot-long" magazines which were easier to grab, whereas Cho used short "regular sized" magazines which were impossible to grab. So, Colin Goddard played possum and relied on the decision and mercy of someone else to let him live or not.

Soon, those "foot-long" magazines may be banned, so we'll be under the same conditions as Virginia Tech, or Luby's or other places shooters used short magazines which were faster to reload and impossible to grab.

Let's not keep the "Status Quo" where the "first responders" are just "moving targets" and allow nutjobs rack up higher body counts.

Legislators shouldn't prescribe incorrect "cures" prior to performing a "proper diagnosis."

"students can keep a close eye on suspicious activity and people and report them before a tragedy occurs. Vigilance may prevent violence."

No disagreement here, this should be done, and should already have been being done, IN ADDITION to allowing people to protect themselves against those who "slip through the cracks"

My reply:

Yes, vigilance may indeed prevent violence, but it is only one small factor in a thing called preparedness, and another factor is being ready to act if necessary, and that readiness includes other sub factors, even including being armed.

With every campus shooting as far back as I can remember there has always been a sound/video bite from at least one person saying “This is a [school] it is supposed to be a safe place . . .” and laws have been passed that made it illegal for persons with guns to be within 1000 feet of a school.

Now we have decades worth of empirical evidence as to how well that “gun free zone” policy works, and it is intuitively obvious that not only does it not work in the first place, but may even encourage off the wall nut cases to choose them merely because they know that there is a vanishing small chance that there will be an armed response.

And we also have evidence that armed response can and will reduce casualties, as in Mercaz Harav Yeshiva in 2008 where one armed student crawled out onto an adjacent roof and shot the terrorist twice putting an end to his rampage.

And there is the case of the “New Life” church where Jeanne Assam took on another terrorist armed with at least two handguns, an “assault rifle” and over 1000 rounds of ammunition, and she did it with just her handgun.

Armed citizens (even Jeanne Assam was just “volunteer security”: a parishioner who was acting as security, not a cop or licensed security guard) have proven to be up to the task of reducing the number of casualties at a minimum, even Charles Whitman was forced to shoot from behind cover after armed civilians returned fire.

The Phoenix Shooter was armed with what could be termed “high capacity” magazines, if you define high capacity in terms that recognize that some “design capacity” magazines are capable of containing more than the 10 rounds that Carolyn McCarthy considers to be a suitable limit. It should also be considered that Colin Furgeson used standard capacity magazines and reloaded several times, while the Phoenix shooter used magazines that extended the capacity, but hampered his reloads to the extent that prepared, even if unarmed, citizens were able to tackle and subdue him, ending his rampage.

The proposed law would not allow “anyone” to carry concealed firearms on campus, only those duly licensed by the state of Texas to carry concealed, a process that includes background investigations and training in the proper handling of firearms, the proper response to threats, and even threat resolution without resorting to gunfire, including not using “guns as scare tactics.” Concealed means concealed, and no one should know the gun is there, and there are substantial penalties for CHL holders who fail to conceal. And the state of Texas does not allow anyone to take the course unless they are over 21 or are a military veteran. So it would be a select few who would be carrying, not anyone who wants to as you imply.

Yes, nothing can ensure safety, last week some nut decided to stage a one man assault on a police station. He succeeded in wounding a few cops, and then was subdued by return fire. The way I heard it they gave up trying to count all the hits that he suffered while being subdued – obviously someone who needed to be weeded out of the gene pool.

Nothing can ensure safety, but that does not mean that any of us must be denied the chance to respond as were Dr. Suzanna Gratia and her parents as they cowered in fear while a gunman marched around Luby’s and summarily executed anyone he felt like, and who reloaded multiple times during his rampage.

Nothing can ensure safety, but still feel safer knowing that I am in a state where an armed citizen could come to my aid in that long wait between calling the cops and their actual arrival.

Nothing can ensure safety, and no legislation can stop criminals.

I may have been a bit direct. But so many things in that article are just wrong haha. People don't even bother with logic or stats anymore, they just vomit opinions like they are facts.

http://www.paisano-online.com/news/guns ... -1.1951635" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

More of the same...gonna put my two cents worth in when I get home.

I replied:

Feign might do well to consider that the reason for the legislation is due to lessons learned from Tucson. He trots out the same old arguments that were used against CHL when it was being voted on, and uses a massacre by someone who ignored the laws in place as a reason to keep it illegal for law abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves from criminals who ignore the law.

And he should also consider that concealed carry is not "parading around their handguns like trophies" it is keeping the handgun on your body concealed and secret.

And what in the world does 1863 have to do with concealed carry or the Second Amendment? Maybe his lack of knowledge of history has something to do with his skewed perceptions all around.

I posted 2 "site comments" on that recent article.
I'm still resisting getting a facenotepad account

There's also a good recent "letter to the editor" that's pro carry there.

I gave him a new one with a facebook post. No rude language or anything. Someone removed it along with another facebook comment over the last two days. One will just hope that most people can figure out for themselves how flawed the logic in that article is. I'm not saying there are NO decent points against campus carry. Just that he didn't hit any of them.

I see your today FB one and an Anonymouse FB one, I may need to make a FB account someday so I can click LIKE a bunch

RPB wrote:I see your today FB one and an Anonymouse FB one, I may need to make a FB account someday so I can click LIKE a bunch

Hmmm It does appear to be there again now. I suppose it may have just been a loading issue. Good though, that would be really rude to delete opinion comments because you disagree. I stand corrected though, its still there.

RPB wrote:I see your today FB one and an Anonymouse FB one, I may need to make a FB account someday so I can click LIKE a bunch

One anonymous one was mine, even though I joined and signed in.

More of the same from UTSAs future journalists...

http://www.paisano-online.com/news/guns ... -1.2083111
http://www.paisano-online.com/opinion/s ... -1.2085034

I had written a fairly lengthly response and found that my comments were deleted later.

TridentFrog wrote:More of the same from UTSAs future journalists...

http://www.paisano-online.com/news/guns ... -1.2083111
http://www.paisano-online.com/opinion/s ... -1.2085034

I had written a fairly lengthly response and found that my comments were deleted later.

I re-added my "Site comments" today

Interesting.

While reading the article, I'm getting an advertisement for

USConcealedCarry.com with a nice 1911 on it.

PappaGun wrote:Interesting.

While reading the article, I'm getting an advertisement for

USConcealedCarry.com with a nice 1911 on it.

I think it's Lubbock Papers have ads for CHL classes next to any "anti-gun" articles