Two things: 1. I explicitly said that I had misgivings about guns on a college campus. 2. Generally speaking, the guy that goes nuts and shoots up a school is NOT licensed to carry. Since that is the case, we didn't make it easier for him to do anything. The illegal gunmen really don't seem to have a hard time committing the act as it is.
The binghamton guy had a pistol license which is a license to own the gun, not carry it. They do not give out very many carry permits there. You have to have a license simply to own the gun though. Nice source there on the other guy though. A dude said he had one. Excellent.
they MAY, but it is unlikely. Why would they only get it to carry on campus if carrying everywhere else they do not feel they need it? It just isn't logical. I guess you are refering to others saying CHL holders are much more law abiding. Not really me, but hey you are a gun grabber, getting your facts straight is counter-productive. They are trying to get this passed to keep people from getting in trouble who are trying to protect themselves and feel safer. Doing that should not make you a criminal, but it currently is. Yeah except cops with guns right? Oh crap you forgot about that. Wait so some guns were available at these huge parties? No shootings? Weird Guns are already on campus. Your common theme relies on the fact that everyone will have a gun. This is far from the truth given the demographics. A university campus is not the violence infused prison yard you make it out to be. The whole idea here to avoid making criminals out of the good guys. To give the people who want to prepare for the worst the ability to do it without being a criminal.
ABC news last Friday had a thing simulating something like the V-Tech attack and had students armed with paintball guns to try to repel the attack the results aren't very promissing even for students with gun training. http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7312687
how did the kids that got Ninja training do in the simulation vs. the kids with the paintball guns? -this is a joke, this is only a joke, and is not meant to insult your ninja training-
I hope this is a reference to Spike TV's new show Deadliest Warrior. If not, I'm really investing too much time in figuring out who would win in a fight between a samuri and a viking.
So rather than take the word of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, I should instead believe you, a dude who, with absolutely no evidence, says he didn't?
If this is how you feel you probably never post in a thread about Muslim or Arabic cultures? Right? The fact that you do not life in a certain culture does not mean that you cannot disagree with choices they make. It is the choice of the people in Texas, and I respect that. However I said that I would not want to work in such an environment.
You are hilarious, in a sad and pathetic kind of way. You want me to "expand my mind", to reach your level of enlightenment: i.e., reaching an understanding that there is no point to expanding one's mind. Brilliant thinking. The whole point of my statement regarding your ridiculously conceited and close-minded world view was that without the ability to listen and think critically to alternative viewpoints, we are doomed to the fmullegun level of intellect that subscribes to callously trite reasoning to postulate that we are terminally different, and incapable of relating to each other across cultural boundaries. A self-fullfilling prophecy that, don't you think? No, good sir - why don't you please open your mind. Until then, please try to refrain from insulting everyone who does not follow or subscribe to your ethnocentric and damnably anti-intellectual crusade. A just point. Fmullegan, do you work at a institute of higher learning in Texas? If not, I suppose you can never understand or relate to the situtation appropriately, and I recommend, nay, I demand, you remove yourself from further discussion in this thread. Remember, you cannot understand what these people think. You are not the same as them.
All campuses are going to go crazy. When there is a shooting, everyone is going to pull out there gun and start shooting at each other like it is frickin' paintball! Except bullets hurt! No to guns! Yes to peace!
I agree with this and will add one other thing. I would never presume to force you to allow guns in your work place and make you feel less safe. Why would you presume to do so for me? If you are not a faculty member or staff member you have no right to force that on me.
No, it just means that cultures are different and someone from the Netherlands where getting a hunting shotgun is very very hard, does not understand the Texas culture. In the same way singapore would not be open to our opinions on littering, and PRC would not be willing to open a mainstream pr0n industry, cultural lines are real. The only one throwing insults are those who are arguing against me. For instance, this post insulting me multiple times when I never got personal with you at all. Yes I do. Most people there think they are living in a bubble of safety. There was just recently a murder at UH right next to hofheinz. I guess those guys did not give a crap about the gun free zone.
Even if I chose to subsribe to fmullegun's personal flavor of texas culture, why would these differances necessitate a communication void? What is so scary to you about hearing and considering an alternative viewpoint? Cultures are not static. No amount of self-imposed insulation can make that happen (see: China). When you proclaim to speak for all of Texas culture and demand those unaffiliated with your "views" back off - that's pretty personal. I don't think anything I said was unfair. You casually called me "close-minded" - I called you out on it. It's not my fault you were wrong. I don't think legislating a new "wild west" at universities in Texas is the answer to this problem.
Expect friction in any culture when you come from a far different culture and tell them how theirs is inferior and should be changed. China opened up on their own accord. And even though they eat KFC and watch "Friends" they are WAY different from us. I said open your mind. That is not an insult. It is encouragment. Then I back up my belief of the posters inability to be able to contribute to this thread regarding Texas law. You called me sad and pathetic conceited. You then in the same post called ME out for slinging insults. The same term "wild west" was used when CHL was first up for consideration. Claiming CHL holders would be involved in road rage shootings, and normal conflicts would be instantly escalated. This never happened but you guys are saying the same thing again about an environment with much less daily conflicts and violence.
Who said that? I think arno was pretty clear: He said he would not work at such an establishment. More to the point - why is hearing about alternative cultural viewpoints so threatening, fmullegun? What do you have to lose by listening to someone else's point of view? You keep avoiding these questions. Certainly, being "told" or "lectured" can be aggravating. But a) no one was doing that, and b) even that kind of speech can be a source of meritous discussion and thinking. Stating that such commentary is unnecessary and worthless speaks more to your cultural insecurity than it does to reasoned debate. I'd argue this, but it's way off topic and probably subjective. How is this difficult to understand? Asking me to "open my mind" and embrace your close-minded ideology is not encouragement - it's epic-fail wordplay. I think I made that abundantly clear. No - you argued that his cultural upbringing made any points of his moot. I found that argument assinine. You brandied about the term "open minded" without even recognizing your own close minded attitude. I found that funny, in a sad way. Pardon my language, but it's the truth. Perhaps you'd be more favorable of the term "irony"? As for conceited - viewing your own impression of texas culture as both absolute and unassailable by non-Texans, is, objectively, conceited. I don't think more guns will solve gun crime and I'd wager a quantitative historical study would support that conclusion. Use whatever analogy you think is appropriate. EDIT: for the record, fmullegun - no hard feelings. I genuinely find your comments interesting and well-formulated.
I'll be 50 years old in May, I was born in Texas, and have only been out of the state twice. We got everything we need right here. I think I understand Texas culture pretty well. This is bad law-making, by silly legislators, however you slice it. fmullegan's titanic intellect notwithstanding.
Because it is irrelavant. He comes from a culture where buying a .22LR bolt action rifle would be very hard. I doubt he has ever shot a gun, and it is possible he has never held one in person that was owned by a private individual. Ofcourse he would feel uncomfortable. Just as someone from Utah would feel uncomfortable being a manger or running a legal establishment for prostitution in his country. His statement to me is as useful as me saying if my boss made me convert part of my office to a love den for my new prostitute colleague I would quit. I am not sure why cultural insecurity is being defined as recognizing that some issues are VERY regional and cultural. It is not close minded to suggest that people who have nothing to do with an issue, with no real world basis or experience for their feelings to be applied really have nothing to add to the dscussion. If I was in Brazoria county meeting about the counties drainage and irrigation system, I imagine they would give a bit more time to the farmer and drainage commissioner than someone giving their personal feelings who live in phoenix. He didn't make any points. He said what he would do if something happened. I think it is more openminded to recognize that people are different and their feelings and opinions should be weighted based on reference. Non-Texan in this reference you are refering to I guess meant when I said on the gun issue a Netherlands national's opinions means as little to the Texas debate as the reverse, I don't see how that is conceited. I am not claiming superiority, I am claiming different. You can bring up whatever study you want, but the "problem" is that people are not allowed to defend themselves on school grounds.
The purpose is to decriminalize people having CHLs to defend themselves on school property. the idea that the bokstore will be handing out AK47's is just silly.
I never suggested anything about handing guns out. What is silly, however, is the belief that more guns on campus, legal or not, is a good thing.
Should I hold you to this philosophy fmullegun? Can I expect you to refrain from posting in any threads pertaining to areas or issues outside your cultural area of expertise? The point is communication - simply denying any merit due to geographical or cultural differences is close-minded. You are still thinking that all cultures are monochrome, static and independently righteous- that's absurd. Issues are not regional or cultural - reactions to them are. There is an enormous difference. Your statement implies that the issues are themselves isolated. That's simply not true, and as such its worthwhile to contemplate standpoints outside one's own narrow cultural upbringing. Who are you to make this judgement? Since when are you the only one with the right way of looking at this issue? You get offended about being called conceited and then post this? No argument. But we're not in a county meeting. And we're not talking about something as localized as drainage. It's not even remotely comparable. Weighting someone's feelings because they're different from yours is the opposite of open-minded. I am aghast that you fail to recognize this. And you shoot yourself in the foot. (get it?)
