TexasCHLforum.com

I had a conversation yesterday with someone who I consider to be an intelligent young man.

The conversation moved to the open carry and campus carry legislation that is being considered.

Friend: "I am all for open carry but I don't think campus carry is such a good idea."
Me: "how so?"
Friend: "I just don't think it's a good idea to let all those college kids carry guns."
Me: "they have to have a license to carry and they have to be old enough for the license which results in those students carrying guns to be a very minuscule percentage."
Friend: "oh, you have to have a license?"
Me: *thinking, "DUH!"* but what I actually said, "of course it would be restricted to license holders."

Now, I am wondering how this could be misunderstood...but that led to HOW MUCH is this misunderstood? I guess what I consider a 'DUH' isn't so much of a 'DUH'?

The way some of the reporters and polititions talk, if you are old enough to be in college you will have a firearm. That is very misleading. It is like they do not know that a student would have to be 21 and have a CHL. I'm sure the polititions and reporters know better, but they definitely don't show it. I am now to the opinion that polititions and reporters do it on purpose.

I had that same concern even when watching the Senate State Affair committee hearing on Feb. 12th, when SB 11 author Senator Birdwell kept having to repeat those points in the bill to the committee members. I'm thinking they don't even sometimes read and understand the bill before asking questions, making comments, etc. One of the Senators even admitted "he was just reading the bill during the hearing..."!

So I can only imagine all the incorrect spins by media, public, forums, twitter, facebook, etc. when these issues come up. We just need to keep grinding away at helping inform the under-informed folks out there.

And I do suspect some of the misinformation is done on purpose by the GHL (gun haters license) holders.

This is nothing new. The increasing liberal stance of the media dictates that they play on half-truths at best. Yes, the written articles will mention the license requirement: once, near the bottom of the 5th paragraph, and with little to no mention of the minimum age requirement. The broadcast media may mention the license requirement as an afterthought if at all. What was once a venerable institution meant to stand as the public watchmen over the government has now become a complicit bedfellow of the group they were meant to scrutinize.

Today, watching the mainstream news for actual information is like trying to learn farming from watching Green Acres.

RogueUSMC wrote:I had a conversation yesterday with someone who I consider to be an intelligent young man.

The conversation moved to the open carry and campus carry legislation that is being considered.

Friend: "I am all for open carry but I don't think campus carry is such a good idea."
Me: "how so?"
Friend: "I just don't think it's a good idea to let all those college kids carry guns."
Me: "they have to have a license to carry and they have to be old enough for the license which results in those students carrying guns to be a very minuscule percentage."
Friend: "oh, you have to have a license?"
Me: *thinking, "DUH!"* but what I actually said, "of course it would be restricted to license holders."

Now, I am wondering how this could be misunderstood...but that led to HOW MUCH is this misunderstood? I guess what I consider a 'DUH' isn't so much of a 'DUH'?

Graduate students and seniors make up just over 50% of UT Austin's student population. A large percentage of those will be old enough to get their CHL. Also, a large percentage of the faculty and staff will be old enough as well. Of course, old enough does not necessarily equate to eligible.

Remember, active and honorably discharged military can get a license at 18. (Is it possible to be honorably discharged and still be under 21?)

The opponents of campus carry know it only applies to license holders. They know you have to be 21 to get a license, as well as pass a background check in which anything other than a Class C misdemeanor will disqualify you.

They will discredit it however they can.

They will cry BLOOD IN THE STREETS!

They will say that we don't want guns at keg parties. Well, since no keg parties happen on campus, that will be unaffected. It's also a crime to carry a gun while intoxicated. Already.

They will say that schools are safe, and we don't need to add guns to them. They are sacred places of learning. Except they fail to mention how being a sacred place prevents acts of violence from happening there.

They will say the campus police are not equipped or trained to deal with students with guns. To that I say, they are liars. Campus police are just as capable as any other. Campus police are normal police officers, just assigned to the campus. They have been dealing with citizens with guns in public for 20 years.

They say CHL holders will intimidate professors with their weapons in order to receive a better grade. I challenge them to find a single documented case of this happening in any of the states where campus carry is currently allowed.

The fact is, times are changing. Gun rights are expanding, and the opponents are losing. They will throw in anything they can in order to persuade people to vote with their emotions, not with their reasoning.

sjfcontrol wrote:(Is it possible to be honorably discharged and still be under 21?)

Yes, they can be discharged early for a number of reasons. Due to sickness or injury they could be medically separated or even retired. Some family event might qualify them for a hardship discharge.

Pawpaw wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:(Is it possible to be honorably discharged and still be under 21?)

Yes, they can be discharged early for a number of reasons. Due to sickness or injury they could be medically separated or even retired. Some family event might qualify them for a hardship discharge.

Ok, thanks. I was never sure if it was possible or not. From your description, I presume that it would be an unusual situation for somebody to qualify for honorable discharge while under 21?

sjfcontrol wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:(Is it possible to be honorably discharged and still be under 21?)

Yes, they can be discharged early for a number of reasons. Due to sickness or injury they could be medically separated or even retired. Some family event might qualify them for a hardship discharge.

Ok, thanks. I was never sure if it was possible or not. From your description, I presume that it would be an unusual situation for somebody to qualify for honorable discharge while under 21?

I wouldn't say it's unusual because it does happen. I would say it is not common. One exception to that statement would be due to combat related injuries. In Iraq and Afghanistan, there were lots of young men & women that sustained serious injuries due to an IED or enemy fire that wound up being medically retired.

3dfxMM wrote:

RogueUSMC wrote:I had a conversation yesterday with someone who I consider to be an intelligent young man.

The conversation moved to the open carry and campus carry legislation that is being considered.

Friend: "I am all for open carry but I don't think campus carry is such a good idea."
Me: "how so?"
Friend: "I just don't think it's a good idea to let all those college kids carry guns."
Me: "they have to have a license to carry and they have to be old enough for the license which results in those students carrying guns to be a very minuscule percentage."
Friend: "oh, you have to have a license?"
Me: *thinking, "DUH!"* but what I actually said, "of course it would be restricted to license holders."

Now, I am wondering how this could be misunderstood...but that led to HOW MUCH is this misunderstood? I guess what I consider a 'DUH' isn't so much of a 'DUH'?

Graduate students and seniors make up just over 50% of UT Austin's student population. A large percentage of those will be old enough to get their CHL. Also, a large percentage of the faculty and staff will be old enough as well. Of course, old enough does not necessarily equate to eligible.

Dorm population is more the contending arguments which is not your graduate students and seniors...

TexasCajun wrote:This is nothing new. The increasing liberal stance of the media dictates that they play on half-truths at best. Yes, the written articles will mention the license requirement: once, near the bottom of the 5th paragraph, and with little to no mention of the minimum age requirement. The broadcast media may mention the license requirement as an afterthought if at all. What was once a venerable institution meant to stand as the public watchmen over the government has now become a complicit bedfellow of the group they were meant to scrutinize.

Today, watching the mainstream news for actual information is like trying to learn farming from watching Green Acres.

I also think that this is very much a situation where the "news" increasingly caters to an audience with the attention span of a sound bite and whose primary source of daily interaction is tumblr. If the message can't be conveyed in that sound bite, it's probably lost. Getting the point across about campus carry would be successful if it was embedded in a video of a cute Hello Campus Carry Kitty video.

I was Honorably discharged in aug 1956 3 months after I turned 16 " Minority honorable"

then went back soon as turned 18

Pawpaw wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:(Is it possible to be honorably discharged and still be under 21?)

Yes, they can be discharged early for a number of reasons. Due to sickness or injury they could be medically separated or even retired. Some family event might qualify them for a hardship discharge.

Ok, thanks. I was never sure if it was possible or not. From your description, I presume that it would be an unusual situation for somebody to qualify for honorable discharge while under 21?

I wouldn't say it's unusual because it does happen. I would say it is not common. One exception to that statement would be due to combat related injuries. In Iraq and Afghanistan, there were lots of young men & women that sustained serious injuries due to an IED or enemy fire that wound up being medically retired.

I know a guy who was in the AF academy playing on their soccer team. He blew out a knee playing soccer for the team, so was honorably discharged at 18 years old. While acts of war are likely the more common scenarios, there are others that are legitimate. It's probably more common than most would think.

Even if the actual number of 18-21 year old CHLs is more than we think, they still don't act irresponsibly enough to sway the overall record of CHL holders.