Well this is sad, Baylor is in Texas right?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

coyote_jr

member
Joined
Jul 31, 2006
Messages
456
Location
Providence, RI
Is Baylor a liberal campus? I would expect this coming out of Cambridge, not Waco

http://www.baylor.edu/Lariat/news.php?action=story&story=46387

Editorial: Gun groups gone wrong
Aug. 20, 2007
Anytime a tragedy occurs we ask ourselves how it could have happened and how it can be prevented from ever happening again. So in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre, gun rights advocates began calling for the repealing of bans on carrying concealed weapons on school campuses.

The national organization of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus is one such group. There are eight chapters of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus in Texas, the most of any state.

Current Texas law forbids the carrying of concealed weapons in places like school campuses, places of worship and government property -- even if a person is licensed to carry.

Arlington senior Andrew Sugg, head of Baylor's SCCC chapter, seeks to make it possible for students to arm themselves at Baylor.

Groups like these have to use circular logic to reach their conclusions. Because a deranged individual brought guns onto campus, Sugg and others believe they should be allowed to bring theirs in order to protect themselves.

What the gun lobby conveniently forgets is that the mental history of Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho should have prevented him from ever obtaining a gun in the first place. Cho's mental history was recognized by a Virginia court in 2005, and due to inconsistencies between federal and state law, he was not entered into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

The problem is not with the laws, but with the ability of the system to work properly. If it did, Cho would not have been able to purchase a gun and the conversation may not have gone in this direction.

While it is clear that the response time of Virginia Tech's campus police was inadequate, this does not mean we should allow anyone who has gone through a criminal history check and a safety course to be a substitute for law enforcement. This vigilante attitude of circumventing the responsibility of law enforcement could potentially create many serious problems.

The majority of people who receive licenses to carry concealed weapons are responsible individuals, but they do not receive nearly the same level of training to handle situations that police do.

Although they do not receive the same amount of press coverage as a school shooting, accidents involving guns are far more common. According to the Centers for Disease Control, there were 776 accidental deaths and 75,685 injuries from firearms in 2001. It would be naïve to say that if bans on guns at these locations are repealed, there would be no accidents as a result.

The purpose of banning concealed weapons in certain places is because the state has a responsibility to ensure the safety of its citizens in those locations.

How wise would it be to allow someone to carry a concealed weapon to a stadium? A church? Better yet, how about an airport? Baylor police chief Jim Doak was quoted in Baylor Line magazine saying it would be "unwise" to lift campus bans. We couldn't agree more.

Baylor SCCC has good intentions at heart -- making campus safer. But before we arm ourselves, there are other steps we can take that are both easier to implement and less double-edged.

One step is to have better emergency planning. School lockdowns for threats are commonplace at our nation's high schools -- the capacity for emergency response should be no different in colleges.

Another step is to better enforce the laws and have tighter background checks. Too many loopholes in state and federal laws are allowing people who shouldn't be able to, to get guns.

Even if state laws are changed, Baylor as a private institution has the right to ban concealed weapons on its own. We hope it continues to keep its rules in place, even if state schools allow concealed carry on their campuses.
Click to expand...

Is advocating for armed self defense in response to a mass shooting a circular argument? Seems like a perfectly good solution to me?
 
The purpose of banning concealed weapons in certain places is because the state has a responsibility to ensure the safety of its citizens in those locations.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't see the state being responsible and ensuring the safety of it's citizens in those locations at all. In fact, many of those pesky mass shootings happen specifically in "gun-free zones".
 
The purpose of banning concealed weapons in certain places is because the state has a responsibility to ensure the safety of its citizens in those locations.
Click to expand...

And banning the law-abiding from keeping and bearing arms does so much to ensure our safety :rolleyes:. As the English have demonstrated over the last few years, though for some reason the crime wave in England isn't a "story" in the US media. After all, England has cameras everywhere and no guns except for criminals... they MUST be safe.
 
The purpose of banning concealed weapons in certain places is because the state has a responsibility to ensure the safety of its citizens in those locations.
Click to expand...

Big hole in that argument; the "state" is not responsible for the safety of individuals, including those murdered at VTech earlier this year. There are a few SCOTUS rulings stating precisely that.
 
What the gun lobby conveniently forgets is that the mental history of Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho should have prevented him from ever obtaining a gun in the first place.
Click to expand...

What leftist extremists conveniently—for themselves—forget is that criminals ignore, circumvent, and deliberately break laws all the time. “Should have” doesn't save lives. Recognizing the right of the people to keep and bear arms might.
 
This vigilante attitude of circumventing the responsibility of law enforcement could potentially create many serious problems.
Click to expand...

That our individual safety is the responsibility of law enforcement is a myth. I personally think that it is one of the most damaging myths to SA and one of the hardest to convince any one of. No one wants to take responsibility for anything, much less themselves.
 
The Texas Governor, Rick Perry, came out after the VT murders acknowledging the need to allow legal ccw permit holders to carry anywhere. We'll see.
 
Current Texas law forbids the carrying of concealed weapons in places like school campuses, places of worship
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. The 'places of worship' bit has been written out of current law. They've got to post 30.06 to keep CC'ers out.

How wise would it be to allow someone to carry a concealed weapon to a stadium? A church? Better yet, how about an airport?
Click to expand...
Stadium: not sure on this one. Haven't been to one in years.
Church: Already mentioned.
Airport: perfectly legal all the way up to the metal detector - but no further.
Please tell me that crack came from the author of this piece, and not the police chief.

The purpose of banning concealed weapons in certain places is because the state has a responsibility to ensure the safety of its citizens in those locations.
Click to expand...

Then why didn't it work at VA-Tech? The state did a pretty lousy job of ensuring safety there. Columbine, too.
 
As a baylor alum I must say that I find this pretty interesting but not all that surprising. Keeping in mind that we are talking about a campus that allowed dancing little more than a decade ago and prohibits sleevless shirts in the gym, I'm not shocked that they aren't jumping into the ccw ring.

Though in waco, the campus is made up of a bunch of rich kids from austin and houston and the administration isn't really "texan" either. I had the distinct honor of meeting President Lilley and I mean that with the greatest amount of sarcasm possible.

What I do know is that the powers that be have already consulted with some of the finest lawyers texas has to offer (namely those that teach at baylor law) and I'm 100% sure whatever decision they've reached has everything to do with liability and nothing to do with 2nd amendment rights or respecting people who ccw.

Its the nature of the beast.
 
coyote, circular reasoning is a fallacy in logic, http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A688287. The author believes that good people having guns to ensure their safety is a fallacy because we all know that guns are dangerous and thus we cannot be safe if we are around them.

coyote, this article is a good thing. It is a defense of the status quo and shows how helpless their arguments are.:)
 
Coyote-

IIRC, the statement as it stands is false. Gun owners saying, "Bad guys bring their guns so we should be able to bring ours too" is not circular logic. It would be if we were saying, "We should be able to bring our guns because we should be able to bring our guns."
 
El Tejon wrote:
The author believes that good people having guns to ensure their safety is a fallacy because we all know that guns are dangerous and thus we cannot be safe if we are around them.


Good point. Though they'd never admit it in public, folks such as this author also don't really care about the victims in disarmament zones, such as Washington, D.C., New York City, and school campuses. To them, those victims are a price that the rest of society must pay for these elitists to "feel" safe. For you see, they are under the assumption that they can avoid areas where criminals routinely hang out and operate. The fact that criminals can prey on unarmed victims is not a big concern to the victim disarmament proponents. That happens in icky places where the elitists would never go in the first place.

These elitists don't want to be around guns because they're scared of them. Thus, they must have laws that ban guns in public areas that they like to frequent, such as schools, libraries, churches, etc. They don't really care that some innocent people might get killed there, occassionally. No one can stop the intruder since the good folks have been disarmed. The elites are still OK with that because they believe their chances of being close to any guns has been severely lessened by their disarmament laws. Thus, they can "feel" safe, even when they know in their hearts that others will eventually suffer and maybe die. They put their own safety above that of others. That's because they are elitists.
 
As an alumnus of Baylor, I can tell you it is NOT a liberal university. However, the liberal students that are on campus often flock to certain majors (such as journalism). Baylor is a Baptist university, and you will see very little of the protests that are seen on state school campuses.

Every year, a new newspaper editor comes on board and starts spewing this kind of stuff. As far as the administration's views on CCW, they look at it much more from a liability point of view than from a anti/pro gun point of view.

The important thing to look at here is not "oh, another anti-gun newspaper article". The important thing to consider is, why, at an otherwise conservative university, is a newspaper being run by those with "liberal" viewpoints?? Why, in a relatively conservative nation (with a few urban bastions of liberalism), is our media populated with those of the liberal persuasion?? Probably because families with conservative viewpoints don't encourage their children to major in writing/journalism/other artsy-fartsy subjects.
 
Untrained Civilians

I love it when I red these morons saying civilians are not trained like police.
I'm a former ordnance officer,10 yrs security officer,70yrs shooter/can shoot better than most police.most of the remarks in those statments are to cover ignorance or incompetence. there have just been a number of officers removed for corruption.only since the 60s have we had most of this bulls**t.socialism & liberalism is killing this country.
:uhoh: :confused: :banghead:
 
The CDC statistics are false. Asking the CDC about firearms safety is like asking Stalin about the benefits of slave labor.
As far as civilian vs. leo training with firearms. I would say that 90% of the members on this forum are more proficient with firearms than most leos.
 
Baylor

As a law student here-
Yes, after reading all the crazy cases in torts, this probably does all come down to liability- the Professors here are sharp enough to figure out all the angles to protect the school from any legal exposure. As to the liberalism of the campus, I agree that the campus seems pretty conservative, it is just a few liberals who are outspoken- the law school is also very conservative. There are alot of advocates of the 2nd Amend here, however, as was mentioned, possible multi-million dollar lawsuits trump political ideology.
 
Conservative ???

Fburgtx:

As an alumnus of Baylor, I can tell you it is NOT a liberal university. However, the liberal students that are on campus often flock to certain majors (such as journalism). Baylor is a Baptist university, and you will see very little of the protests that are seen on state school campuses.
Click to expand...


So...... let me see, a "Baptist" university which has Mormon Professors and was kicked out of the Southern Baptist Convention is Conservative, Right ???? :what: LOL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Students fight for guns on campus
Replies
5
Views
694
Siderite
S
H
  • Locked
New look for the Students for Concealed Carry On Campus
Replies
16
Views
1K
GEM
G
M
  • Locked
National Collegiate Empty Holster Protest
Replies
9
Views
758
Mr. Designer
M
D
  • Locked
College kids wear gun holsters to protest bans on concealed carry
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
cyclopsshooter
C
F
  • Locked
Student Group Wants More Guns on Campus
Replies
2
Views
469
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
Back
Top