Asshat if the Week -- Jeff Wentworth

[Booth]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The knee jerk reaction is from those supporting the bill, IMHO. Violent crime on college campuses is usually much lower than in other areas off-campus.

You do realize that the CHL law has been in affect in Texas for something like 15 years and a whopping 1.8% of elibible Texans have CHLs. My guess is that college students/faculty/administration would be even less likely than that to carry guns if given the opportunity.

Agreed unless the gun lobby is able to successfully scare everyone into carrying.

[PornPet69]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Your 3rd sentence is incorrect. Sen. Wentworth brought this bill up in 2009 and didn't get it out for discussion. Tried again this year (the legislature only meets every other year) and again could not get it out for discussion. Only then did he try to back-door the bill by adding it to another amendment. Had nothing to do with the incident on the UT campus earlier this year.

Your right, I stand corrected.

EVERY person who has a concealed handgun permit is a law-abiding citizen. You can't get a CHL otherwise. Every criminal is a law-abiding citizens until he breaks the law.

Wrong every criminal is not a law abiding citizen that is the definition of a criminal, one who does not follow the law. When have you heard of a person who has a CHL go off and shoot people in the streets. It doesn't happen, only real reason people have one is to have a personal sense of security for themselves.

Do you think the college administrations have some vested interest in being opposed to allowing concealed handguns on campus? Do you think that the college administrations don't believe they are acting in the best interests of the people on their campuses by not allowing concealed handguns on campus?

Yes they are looking out for the majority but shouldn't the minority have the right to feel safe.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The knee jerk reaction is from those supporting the bill, IMHO. Violent crime on college campuses is usually much lower than in other areas off-campus.

You do realize that the CHL law has been in affect in Texas for something like 15 years and a whopping 1.8% of elibible Texans have CHLs. My guess is that college students/faculty/administration would be even less likely than that to carry guns if given the opportunity.

If it is less than 2%, then why have a problem with the few students who might want to protect themselves if another occurrence like that happen? Next time it be a real crazy kid who will actually want to kill people with no problem, this last incident it was obvious he didn't want to hurt anybody.

[WyldemanATX]

People who have a concealed handgun permit are not a threat. It is the ones that can't get a concealed handgun permit that are the biggest threat. I prefer that no one knows that I have a gun. When this country first started we did not have police. If someone went off on a killing spree the locals would just shoot his ass. Most criminals are cowards they look for a weak victim and most the time will move on if they think you are a threat. If you think that it is easy to pull a gun on someone I dare you to get an unloaded gun and point it at someone. I am willing to bet you still will not really want to pull the trigger. I am all for the right to possess a gun and be able to defend myself. I do not think that the students should be packing, but I do think the teachers and faculty should at least have tasers.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Wrong every criminal is not a law abiding citizen that is the definition of a criminal, one who does not follow the law. When have you heard of a person who has a CHL go off and shoot people in the streets. It doesn't happen, only real reason people have one is to have a personal sense of security for themselves.

You read my statement but did not take the time to understand it. Every criminal, at one time, was a law-abiding citizen. I am a law-abiding citizen. If I break the law, I am no longer a law-abiding citizen. I never said that a criminal was not a law-abiding citizen.

Yes they are looking out for the majority but shouldn't the minority have the right to feel safe.

Not if it puts the majority in danger, which is what colleges fear. Would you want to be a professor who has to give an "F" to a student who might be carrying? Or how about this scenario -- you are carrying and hear gunfire in the hallway. You pull your gun and go into the hallway and see a guy about 10 feet away who turns and points a gun at you. Do you fire? If it is a fellow student who reacted like you did and either you or he gets shot and killed, that person is probably going to be brought up on charges. Again, to repeat one more time -- the college administrations have assessed the upside and downside of allowing concealed handguns on campus and have decided, on almost every college campus in the U.S., that the downside is greater.

If it is less than 2%, then why have a problem with the few students who might want to protect themselves if another occurrence like that happen? Next time it be a real crazy kid who will actually want to kill people with no problem, this last incident it was obvious he didn't want to hurt anybody.

See my above response. Very applicable here, too. You are certainly welcome to your opinion but I trust the opinion of college administrations over your opinion.

[Budman]

You are really reaching there Speedracer. The professor's may be scared to give someone an "F"? Using that type of scenario really makes your argument weak. Both sides can come up with extreme scenarios to bolster their argument. So what do we do now, see who can make up the most bizarre situation that may support their side? Look at it this way, if only 1.8% of eligible Texans have a CHL and the campus population is mostly against this then the number of CHL's on campus will be extremely low. Probably less than 1% of eligible people. I would bet you that there are already plenty of guns floating around most campuses but are left in vehicles or dorm rooms. Don't kid yourself that all these students are angels.

[PornPet69]

Speed,

We can go over a million different scenarios where we can make the CHL guy a hero or a villain. We can debate this till our balls turn blue but we're not gonna change our opinion. So I agree to disagree.

[Abc123ddd]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You read my statement but did not take the time to understand it. Every criminal, at one time, was a law-abiding citizen. I am a law-abiding citizen. If I break the law, I am no longer a law-abiding citizen. I never said that a criminal was not a law-abiding citizen.

Your argument is misleading and false at the same time. Fact of the matter, whether you like it or not, CHL holders in Texas are 5.5 times less likely to commit a violent crime than the general population (gunfacts.info).

Every criminal is a law abiding citizen until he breaks the law? Sure, how does that apply to the discussion at hand? Right now, if a law abiding citizen decides to take a gun on campus, what is stopping him? The law- a moral agreement? If they are going to steal, rape or murder with that gun why would they give two shits if it is legal to carry or not?

At the same time, if they do steal, rape or murder, what does it matter if they were legally carrying or not? Murder is about as bad as it gets crime-wise, what does how they accomplish it have to do with anything? If they are going to commit the worst crime why would they even care about anything lesser, like whether it is legal for them to carry their murder weapon or not?

Not if it puts the majority in danger, which is what colleges fear. Would you want to be a professor who has to give an "F" to a student who might be carrying? Or how about this scenario -- you are carrying and hear gunfire in the hallway. You pull your gun and go into the hallway and see a guy about 10 feet away who turns and points a gun at you. Do you fire? If it is a fellow student who reacted like you did and either you or he gets shot and killed, that person is probably going to be brought up on charges. Again, to repeat one more time -- the college administrations have assessed the upside and downside of allowing concealed handguns on campus and have decided, on almost every college campus in the U.S., that the downside is greater.

If a student was going to kill his professor over a F... what is stopping him right now? Why hasn't it happened already? Guns being illegal on campus wouldn't have anything to do with it because murder is a far worse crime that illegally carrying, right?

Your 'professor' argument is the same style used when concealed carry was 'legalized' in Texas. A great emotional plea, but not much else. Here are the facts- Out of 39 right to carry states, not one has seen an increase of any sort of crime after carry laws were passed. In Texas murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average after carry was legalized. Rapes fell 93% faster the first year and 500% faster the second. Assaults 250% faster the second. The fact of the matter is violent crime is higher (11% higher than the national average) in states that restrict the right to carry (gunfacts.info).

As far as the second part of your argument-You'd be surprised how easy it is to tell what intentions people have in situations like that considering the millions of years of evolution of communication that all stems from body language we have bred into our brains; but that is an anecdotal argument. What I will argue- I would much rather have one person mistakenly shot while stopping a mass-murderer, than to let that murderer run free and kill 60. 60 is a greater loss of life than 1. If you aren't comfortable taking that chance to defend yourself, then don't carry. Cower under your desk, wait 2-3 min for the police to arrive and pray they don't come in your room.

See my above response. Very applicable here, too. You are certainly welcome to your opinion but I trust the opinion of college administrations over your opinion.

Colleges like UT are public institutions, not private. You say the administrations, the police, the students all do not want people to have the right to carry... good thing we live in a republic. Minority rights are every bit as important as the majority....

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Budman

You are really reaching there Speedracer. The professor's may be scared to give someone an "F"? Using that type of scenario really makes your argument weak. Both sides can come up with extreme scenarios to bolster their argument. So what do we do now, see who can make up the most bizarre situation that may support their side? Look at it this way, if only 1.8% of eligible Texans have a CHL and the campus population is mostly against this then the number of CHL's on campus will be extremely low. Probably less than 1% of eligible people. I would bet you that there are already plenty of guns floating around most campuses but are left in vehicles or dorm rooms. Don't kid yourself that all these students are angels.

To believe that another Virginia Tech disaster could occur is reaching too.
All gun advocates use the phrase "It could happen to you" or "It only takes one crazy person to start another Virgina Tech" in justifying their positions, no matter how far-fetched. And if a student wants to illegally carry a gun on campus that is their choice. All they are risking is being thrown out of the school if caught. I personally doubt that many students are willing to take that chance, even if they wanted to carry.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You read my statement but did not take the time to understand it. Every criminal, at one time, was a law-abiding citizen. I am a law-abiding citizen. If I break the law, I am no longer a law-abiding citizen. I never said that a criminal was not a law-abiding citizen.

Your argument is misleading and false at the same time. Fact of the matter, whether you like it or not, CHL holders in Texas are 5.5 times less likely to commit a violent crime than the general population (gunfacts.info).

I have no idea what you read that made you think I made any statements about CHL holders commiting more or an equal amount of crime than non-CHL holders. Your statement is probably correct and I never said anything to the contrary.

Every criminal is a law abiding citizen until he breaks the law? Sure, how does that apply to the discussion at hand? Right now, if a law abiding citizen decides to take a gun on campus, what is stopping him? The law- a moral agreement? If they are going to steal, rape or murder with that gun why would they give two shits if it is legal to carry or not?

I responded to a statement from someone when I made that statement. That is how it applies to the discussion.

At the same time, if they do steal, rape or murder, what does it matter if they were legally carrying or not? Murder is about as bad as it gets crime-wise, what does how they accomplish it have to do with anything? If they are going to commit the worst crime why would they even care about anything lesser, like whether it is legal for them to carry their murder weapon or not?

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. The discussion is about college students, professors, and administration workers being given the right to carry concealed weapons on campus. Please stick to the subject being discussed.

Quote:

Not if it puts the majority in danger, which is what colleges fear. Would you want to be a professor who has to give an "F" to a student who might be carrying? Or how about this scenario -- you are carrying and hear gunfire in the hallway. You pull your gun and go into the hallway and see a guy about 10 feet away who turns and points a gun at you. Do you fire? If it is a fellow student who reacted like you did and either you or he gets shot and killed, that person is probably going to be brought up on charges. Again, to repeat one more time -- the college administrations have assessed the upside and downside of allowing concealed handguns on campus and have decided, on almost every college campus in the U.S., that the downside is greater.

If a student was going to kill his professor over a F... what is stopping him right now? Why hasn't it happened already? Guns being illegal on campus wouldn't have anything to do with it because murder is a far worse crime that illegally carrying, right?

At my place of business, guns are not allowed. Would you like to be a manager who had to fire an employee who might be carrying? I know of a few incidents during my years at my company where verbal altercations occurred and once where an employee punched his manager. And these are white-collar professionals. Fights like this are spur of the moment. Put a gun in the aggressors hands and who knows what might happen. No guns, no one dead in all liklihood. Put a gun in the mix and the liklihood of death increases.

Your 'professor' argument is the same style used when concealed carry was 'legalized' in Texas. A great emotional plea, but not much else. Here are the facts- Out of 39 right to carry states, not one has seen an increase of any sort of crime after carry laws were passed. In Texas murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average after carry was legalized. Rapes fell 93% faster the first year and 500% faster the second. Assaults 250% faster the second. The fact of the matter is violent crime is higher (11% higher than the national average) in states that restrict the right to carry (gunfacts.info).

We are not talking about anyplace other than college campuses. Please stick to the relevant subjects. In an earlier post, I gave a link to a website that had crime rates on college campuses. They are low, low, low. What we are discussing are NOT my opinions but rather the opinions of those who oversee the safety on the UT-Austin campus, from the chancellor of the UT system to the campus police, and everyone inbetween.

As far as the second part of your argument-You'd be surprised how easy it is to tell what intentions people have in situations like that considering the millions of years of evolution of communication that all stems from body language we have bred into our brains; but that is an anecdotal argument. What I will argue- I would much rather have one person mistakenly shot while stopping a mass-murderer, than to let that murderer run free and kill 60. 60 is a greater loss of life than 1. If you aren't comfortable taking that chance to defend yourself, then don't carry. Cower under your desk, wait 2-3 min for the police to arrive and pray they don't come in your room.

And exactly how many mass-murderers have there been on college campuses since the dawn of time? Obviously not enough to warrant allowing concealed handguns on campuses in 49 out of the 50 states. I don't own or carry a gun because I have no fear of being the victim of a crime. However, if I lived in an area where violent crime was a common occurance, I would reconsider. I am in no way against anyone, including myself, legally carrying a gun. I see no need for anyone to do so on most college campuses.
Quote:

See my above response. Very applicable here, too. You are certainly welcome to your opinion but I trust the opinion of college administrations over your opinion.

Colleges like UT are public institutions, not private. You say the administrations, the police, the students all do not want people to have the right to carry... good thing we live in a republic. Minority rights are every bit as important as the majority....

Correct we live in a republic where we are governed by laws and if you don't like the laws you can fight to have them changed. That's how a democracy works. The law right now is you can't carry a concealed weapon on college campuses in Texas. I know some individuals who want NO gun control at all, including allowing anyone to carry any weapon on a commercial airliner. So should this minority have this right?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by PornPet69

Speed,

We can go over a million different scenarios where we can make the CHL guy a hero or a villain. We can debate this till our balls turn blue but we're not gonna change our opinion. So I agree to disagree.

I agree but I will also defend my position when attacked.

However, as with most threads, this one has taken a life of its own. My original post was to point out how State Senator Wentworth took an end run around the legislative process when he couldn't get his bill to allow handguns on state colleges in Texas even discussed. I have absolutely no problem with Wentworth bringing his bill forward. But when support for his bill fails, as it did for the 2nd time, he should back off and try to convince his fellow senators to vote for it when re-introduced. Not try to jam it through as an amendment to another bill.

[Budman]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I agree but I will also defend my position when attacked.

However, as with most threads, this one has taken a life of its own. My original post was to point out how State Senator Wentworth took an end run around the legislative process when he couldn't get his bill to allow handguns on state colleges in Texas even discussed. I have absolutely no problem with Wentworth bringing his bill forward. But when support for his bill fails, as it did for the 2nd time, he should back off and try to convince his fellow senators to vote for it when re-introduced. Not try to jam it through as an amendment to another bill.

Speed,
Every politician does the so called end run on bills the get shot down. It is the way of our political systems. The only reason you think he is an ASSHAT is because this is a bill you don't want. I also don't think you were attacked in this thread. Others posted their side of an argument without getting personal in any way.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Budman

Speed,
Every politician does the so called end run on bills the get shot down. It is the way of our political systems. The only reason you think he is an ASSHAT is because this is a bill you don't want. I also don't think you were attacked in this thread. Others posted their side of an argument without getting personal in any way.

Sorry if you disagree with my use of the word "attacked". I agree that everyone has been very polite in whichever side they choose to defend. Unlike other discussions.

You may be right on your statement on other politicians using similar end-runs. And you are definitely right that this is one issue on which that I have a definite point-of-view. However, this piece of news made the front page of the second section of the Austin American Statesman. It has been a much-discussed issue in Texas for years. And you can see the amount of discussion in just 2 days on this thread. So I am not the only one who considers it an important issue.

Since you brought it up, and claim it is common, I'd like to know other instances of such "end runs" that you can cite.

[screwey]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Wrong again. From the document titled "Texas Concealed Handgun Laws":

PC §46.035.

... SNIP...
Please show me where there is any mention of proper notification.
... SNIP...

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u.../htm/PE.46.htm

The whole section reads:
Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.
(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the license holder's person:
(1) on the premises of a business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, if the business derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, as determined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code;
(2) on the premises where a high school, collegiate, or professional sporting event or interscholastic event is taking place, unless the license holder is a participant in the event and a handgun is used in the event;
(3) on the premises of a correctional facility;
(4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the license holder has written authorization of the hospital or nursing home administration, as appropriate;
(5) in an amusement park; or
(6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship.
(c) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, at any meeting of a governmental entity.
(d) A license holder commits an offense if, while intoxicated, the license holder carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed.
(e) A license holder who is licensed as a security officer under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, and employed as a security officer commits an offense if, while in the course and scope of the security officer's employment, the security officer violates a provision of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.
(f) In this section:
(1) "Amusement park" means a permanent indoor or outdoor facility or park where amusement rides are available for use by the public that is located in a county with a population of more than one million, encompasses at least 75 acres in surface area, is enclosed with access only through controlled entries, is open for operation more than 120 days in each calendar year, and has security guards on the premises at all times. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.
(2) "License holder" means a person licensed to carry a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.
(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.
(g) An offense under Subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) is a Class A misdemeanor, unless the offense is committed under Subsection (b)(1) or (b)(3), in which event the offense is a felony of the third degree.
(h) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that the actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, displayed the handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been justified in the use of deadly force under Chapter 9.

Text of subsection as added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1214, Sec. 2


(h-1) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsections (b) and (c) that the actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, was:
(1) an active judicial officer, as defined by Section 411.201, Government Code; or
(2) a bailiff designated by the active judicial officer and engaged in escorting the officer.

Text of subsection as added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1222, Sec. 5


(h-1) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsections (b)(1), (2), and (4)-(6), and (c) that at the time of the commission of the offense, the actor was:
(1) a judge or justice of a federal court;
(2) an active judicial officer, as defined by Section 411.201, Government Code; or
(3) a district attorney, assistant district attorney, criminal district attorney, assistant criminal district attorney, county attorney, or assistant county attorney.
(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.
(j) Subsections (a) and (b)(1) do not apply to a historical reenactment performed in compliance with the rules of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission.
(k) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (b)(1) that the actor was not given effective notice under Section 411.204, Government Code.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 229, Sec. 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 10.04, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1261, Sec. 26, 27, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1420, Sec. 14.833, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 976, Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2005.
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1214, Sec. 2, eff. June 15, 2007.
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1222, Sec. 5, eff. June 15, 2007.
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 687, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2009.

And in case you are not familiar with 30.06:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u.../htm/PE.30.htm
Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.
...etc...

These indicate that proper notification IS required, otherwise carry is permitted.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Screwey, you are correct in that a sign is required to prohibit people with CHLs from carrying in a church. I don't agree with that little caveat but that's the way it is.

I have seen such signs at banks and my place of work. Never noticed one at my church.

[screwey]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Screwey, you are correct in that a sign is required to prohibit people with CHLs from carrying in a church. I don't agree with that little caveat but that's the way it is.

I have seen such signs at banks and my place of work. Never noticed one at my church.

Thanks for being such a gentleman about this. We all have differing opinions. But, if the need is there, those of us who are prepared, would defend you if needed, even in a Church.