campus carry at UT

[YukonGlocker]

The recent passage of "campus carry" in Texas is causing a firestorm at The University of Texas. The university is spending untold piles of money trying to determine how to restrict carry as much as the law will allow. The majority of faculty, staff, and students are very vocal about their opposition to the law. They have a website here: http://gunfreeut.org/. Of course, any social media surrounding the university and it's affiliate programs are filled with articles such as this one: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/opinion/the-concealed-carry-fantasy.html. It's been quite a show.

 

[loudshirt]

I know most will not listen but if you look at your average college student (18-22yrs old), most can not legally buy a gun or get a carry permit. Now this is not to say that people do not already have weapons in dorm rooms legally purchased or otherwise.

 

[Dale00]

The recent passage of "campus carry" in Texas is causing a firestorm at The University of Texas. The university is spending untold piles of money trying to determine how to restrict carry as much as the law will allow. The majority of faculty, staff, and students are very vocal about their opposition to the law. They have a website here: http://gunfreeut.org/. Of course, any social media surrounding the university and it's affiliate programs are filled with articles such as this one: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/opinion/the-concealed-carry-fantasy.html. It's been quite a show.

Interesting website. I do not see the majority of academic departments making statements so I take that as a positive sign that anti-gun sentiment is not the mainstream opinion there. Only liberal arts departments have made position statements as far as I can see. I suspect that indifference or mild concern is more typical. The anti's probably do have everyone else cowed and afraid to voice different opinions.

included is a reference to a historical document banning firearms from the University of Virginia the signing of which was supposedly witnessed by Jefferson. What is left out of that historic ban discussion however is the problem of dueling that was prevalent at that time. Dueling is no longer a concern so gun rights can be restored on campuses without worry LOL.

I am amused by the argument that discussion of controversial topics in the classroom would lead to gunfights. Really? If this were true then we would be seeing fist fights in college classrooms and I have never heard of or witnessed any. Has anyone seen a fight break out in a college classroom over a controversial topic?? Very few I would expect.

 

[Gideon]

I am amused by the argument that discussion of controversial topics in the classroom would lead to gunfights. Really? If this were true then we would be seeing fist fights in college classrooms and I have never heard of or witnessed any. Has anyone seen a fight break out in a college classroom over a controversial topic?? Very few I would expect.

When human rights advocates say "Regulating guns can lead to tyranny", it's a slippery slope fallacy.
When neo-fascists say "Not regulating guns will automatically cause escalations in violence", it's apparently hard science.

You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

 

[YukonGlocker]

Interesting website. I do not see the majority of academic departments making statements so I take that as a positive sign that anti-gun sentiment is not the mainstream opinion there. Only liberal arts departments have made position statements as far as I can see. I suspect that indifference or mild concern is more typical. The anti's probably do have everyone else cowed and afraid to voice different opinions.

included is a reference to a historical document banning firearms from the University of Virginia the signing of which was supposedly witnessed by Jefferson. What is left out of that historic ban discussion however is the problem of dueling that was prevalent at that time. Dueling is no longer a concern so gun rights can be restored on campuses without worry LOL.

I am amused by the argument that discussion of controversial topics in the classroom would lead to gunfights. Really? If this were true then we would be seeing fist fights in college classrooms and I have never heard of or witnessed any. Has anyone seen a fight break out in a college classroom over a controversial topic?? Very few I would expect.

If you look at the 'petitions', you see new departments coming online almost daily. In general, it seems most people on campus were oblivious to this law until it passed...even now many see a protester with a "no guns on campus" sign and ask "are guns actually allowed on campus?" So much ignorance about the topic in general. Concealed guns have been legal on campus for years...just couldn't legally carry in buildings, sports arenas, etc., and people seem mind-boggled when they learn that. This whole ordeal is rather mind-boggling to me.

 

[jfssms]

If you look at the 'petitions', you see new departments coming online almost daily. In general, it seems most people on campus were oblivious to this law until it passed...even now many see a protester with a "no guns on campus" sign and ask "are guns actually allowed on campus?" So much ignorance about the topic in general. Concealed guns have been legal on campus for years...just couldn't legally carry in buildings, sports arenas, etc., and people seem mind-boggled when they learn that. This whole ordeal is rather mind-boggling to me.

The un firearmed have massive dildos.....so you guys will be okay.

 

[dennishoddy]

The NY times article was so biased it was funny.

 

[YukonGlocker]

The un firearmed have massive dildos.....so you guys will be okay.

I can't wait to see all those dildos...lol!

 

[gerhard1]

When human rights advocates say "Regulating guns can lead to tyranny", it's a slippery slope fallacy.
When neo-fascists say "Not regulating guns will automatically cause escalations in violence", it's apparently hard science.

You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

Usually the 'slippery slope' or the 'camel's nose' argument is a logical fallacy. However, I would argue that in the case of guns, it is not. Why? Maybe you also don't remember the statements by gun-control advocates that their pet bill was 'only a step towards more comprehensive gun-control legislation' later. Nelson P. Shields himself said
Quote:

"I'm convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, 'This is a great law. The problem is solved.' And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition -- except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal."

Now, in case you don't know who Nelson Shields was, he was the founder of Handgun Control Inc. the group that later merged with another to become the Brady Campaign.

Shields was honest about his goals.
__________________

 

[gerhard1]

The NY times article was so biased it was funny.

It was an editorial, not an article. I agree that it was extremely biased, however.