Douva

Members
  • Content

    2,005
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never
  • Feedback

    0%

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

Gear

  • Main Canopy Size
    120
  • Reserve Canopy Size
    143
  • AAD
    Cypres

Jump Profile

  • Home DZ
    Skydive San Marcos
  • License
    D
  • License Number
    22772
  • Licensing Organization
    USPA
  • Number of Jumps
    972
  • Years in Sport
    9
  • First Choice Discipline
    Skysurfing
  • First Choice Discipline Jump Total
    336
  • Second Choice Discipline
    Freefall Photography
  • Second Choice Discipline Jump Total
    81

Ratings and Rigging

  • AFF
    Instructor
  • USPA Coach
    Yes
  • Pro Rating
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Like I said, if you're genuinely interested in learning about my organization's side of this issue, you'll find a nice overview in the documents to which I linked. If, on the other hand, your only interest in what I have to say is as fodder for your own childish responses, you've gotten all you're going to get out of me. I'll check in again in another three years. In the meantime, anyone who's interested can follow this issue at CampusCarry.com. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  2. On what do you base your assumption that there would be so many concealed handgun license holders in one area? In the state of Texas, the rate of concealed handgun licensure among individuals age 21-24 (typical college age) is about 0.33%. That means you'd need to collect about 9,000 upperclassmen and grad students in order to find 30 who are licensed to carry a concealed handgun. Beyond that, why do you assume that ANY concealed handgun license holders would be running around the hallways with their guns drawn? Concealed handgun license holders carry for personal protection, not so that they can act like amateur one-man SWAT teams and go looking for a bad guy at the first sound of gunfire. Applicants are specifically taught not to interject themselves into a situation that does not involve them. To expect them to be running around, guns drawn, in the midst of a campus shooting is to expect them to defy not only their training but also basic survival instinct. They'd also be violating state law. License holders must keep their firearms concealed unless and until they encounter an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm. Hearing gunshots in the distance does not constitute an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm. Finally, concealed handgun license holders, just like police officers, are taught not to make assumptions or rash judgments about a situation they've just encountered. Just as police officers are trained to expect both armed bad guys AND armed good guys--from off-duty or undercover police officers to concealed handgun license holders to victims or bystanders who may have wrestled a gun away from an assailant--in a tactical situation, concealed handgun license holders realize that there may be other lawfully armed citizens taking defensive positions, just like them. The concern that concealed handgun license holders might actually make a campus shooting worse is voiced in a lot of different ways, none of which stand up to scrutiny. Sometimes people suggest that having more guns present would lead to more bullets flying and more people being killed in the crossfire. But contrary to what the movies might have us believe, real-world shootouts don’t involve 10 minutes of people diving through doorways and ducking behind desks to reload. A 1997 FBI study found that most shootouts last less than 10 seconds. How could 10 seconds of exchanged gunfire between an assailant and a CHL holder possibly lead to greater loss of life than a 10-minute, uncontested execution-style massacre, like the one that occurred at Virginia Tech? Others suggest that police might see everyone shooting at each other and be unable to tell the good guys from the bad guys or that police would automatically shoot anyone seen holding a gun. But as I've already explained, neither of those concerns are valid. The Houston Police Officers' Union, the largest police union in the state of Texas, recently dismissed concerns that concealed handgun license holders might add to the chaos or confusion of a campus shooting and endorsed the legalization of licensed concealed carry on Texas college campuses. If you're genuinely interested in learning about my organization's side of this issue, I suggest you start by reviewing these three relatively short documents: “Considering Concealed Carry on Texas College Campuses” (a short essay) “Answers to the Most Common Arguments Against Concealed Carry on College Campuses” (an FAQ page) “Concealed Carry in Texas” (a fact sheet) I don't have a lot of time to debate this issue in a forum not filled with either Texas legislators or Texas voters, but those three documents will provide you with expanded answers, additional information, and source citations. --W. Scott "Douva" Lewis I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  3. It's nice to know that, despite not having posted in almost three years, I can still inspire an eight-page thread on DZ.com. W. Scott "Douva" Lewis Texas Legislative Director, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus Editor, CampusCarry.com http://www.TexasStudentsCarry.com I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  4. My appearance on Cam & Company (Sirius Patriot 144 radio): http://www.concealedcampus.org/cam_and_company_022208.mp3 I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  5. I thought I'd add a little fuel to the fire. I don't particularly care for having an interview I gave orally published in a printed publication, because speaking doesn't allow time for proofreading and because vocal inflection doesn't translate into print, but nonetheless, I thought some of you might like to see this interview I gave to Newsweek. I was under the impression the author was simply researching a story and didn't realize that she'd be printing the interview basically word-for-word. http://www.newsweek.com/id/112174/page/1 I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  6. Fox News - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8614016266479174980&hl=en CNN - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2011328849017817632&hl=en I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  7. After a combined total of more than sixty semesters of allowing concealed carry on campus, Colorado State University, Blue Ridge Community College (Weyers Cave, VA), and all nine public colleges in the state of Utah are still without a single resulting incident of gun violence, gun accidents, or gun theft. It boils down to this: If you allow concealed handgun license (CHL)/concealed carry weapons permit (CCW) holders to carry concealed handguns on college campuses, the same people who aren't getting mad/drunk/distraught and shooting people outside of college campuses are the same people who won't be getting mad/drunk/distraught and shooting people on college campuses. http://www.concealedcampus.org/about.htm http://www.concealedcampus.org/faq.htm http://www.concealedcampus.org/arguments.htm http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071024/EDITORIAL/110240004/1013 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3757198766773911761&hl=en I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  8. As a former Texas Republican delegate alternate, I think the Republicans are going to get what they deserve for letting themselves get caught up in this anti-McCain fervor. They've let the neoconservative pundits make them so afraid of electing a moderate that they're going to elect an ultra-liberal instead. And who knows--Maybe that will be the best thing for everyone. Maybe electing the first black president or the first female president is an important enough step that we should all suck it up and endure four to eight years of an ultra-liberal administration. Heaven knows Obama or Clinton couldn't do any worse than than the fiscally irresponsible, socially neconservative Texas governor we elected seven years ago. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  9. If I were a convicted sex offender planning on striking again, I think I'd probably chose my next victim from the list of households that signed the petition aimed at forcing me to move. But that's just me. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  10. Yes. Sure. Arm teachers. What do they give to/teach your kids? Arm yourself. Be always armed. Where does it end? "An eye for an eye ... until everybody's blind.." What a poor society - if there's no other prevention than guns. That's a goal?? If you think self-defense is the same as vengeance, you're already blind. When Gandhi said, "An eye for an eye makes everyone blind," he was not referring to self-defense or guns. He was, however, referring to self-defense and guns when he said, “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." Apparently even Gandhi realized there is a time when force must be met with force. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  11. In a free society, the burden of prove is not on those seeking a right, to show that granting the right will make things better; the burden of proof is on those seeking the denial of that right, to show that granting the right will make things worse. What evidence do you have that allowing trained, licensed teachers to carry guns, much like they do in Israel, would make things any worse at U.S. schools? I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  12. Source: IsraelInsider We sure wouldn't want any American teachers to go around armed in school like this - someone might get hurt! I'm amused that the people who think it's a bad idea are quick to respond with sarcasm but slow to respond with facts supporting their assertion that it's a bad idea. This isn't page isn't exactly arguing for arming teachers, but the facts presented are still relevant: http://www.ConcealedCampus.org/arguments.htm I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  13. "Factors associated with the accident were the moose...." That made me laugh out loud. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  14. What a substantial argument by digging around in history - how old were you in those days? Perhaps, it's just a lack of arguments. The world now is 70 yrs older, that needs a bit more attention. If you're going to brag about the effects of gun control in Germany, expect someone to point out the obvious. Germany never had significant rates of gun crime, violent crime, or homicide; therefore, Germany's thirty-six-year-old system of gun control does not deserve the credit. In the two decades immediately following the passage of Germany's strict 1972 gun control laws, the homicide rate in Germany remained relatively constant. The violent crime rate during that time period almost doubled. That twenty-year period of constant homicide rates was followed by a significant spike in homicides in the mid-nineties and an overall decline in homicides in the first decade of the twenty-first century. The U.S. homicide rates and violent crime rates have seen much more significant declines during the past thirty-six years than have the German homicide rates and violent crime rates. "In strictly regulated Germany, gun-related crime is much higher than in countries such as Switzerland and Israel, that have simpler and/or less restrictive legislation." (U.S. Library of Congress, "Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998.") Excerpt from ProtestEasyGunsLIES.com: When quoting gun crime statistics from other countries, gun control advocates like to point to nations that have very different governments and judicial systems and that lack the gun culture and open borders of the United States. It's easy to point to the low crime rates in Japan or England, two small island nations with easily controllable borders, no significant gun culture (in part because they lack the frontier past of the United States and because they offer very little big game hunting), and judicial systems which afford citizens fewer rights than in the U.S. The British and Japanese definitions of "due process" are very different from the one Americans know. And the British and Japanese systems of government are more totalitarian than the U.S. system. Residents of Japan and England are treated more like subjects than citizens. Actions such as government censorship and warrantless searches, which would never be tolerated in the U.S., are deemed acceptable, under certain circumstances, by the people and governments of Japan and England and, to a lesser degree, Canada. England never had significant gun crime, even before the implementation of gun control. Gun control was first implemented in Great Britain not because of any great need to curb gun violence but because, in the early 1920s, the British government feared the possibility of a working class uprising, similar to the Bolshevik Revolution that had just occurred in Russia. Gun controls were strengthened in the mid-1960s, as a way of appeasing public outcry for a reinstatement of the death penalty, following an incident in which three police officers were murdered with illegal revolvers. Because the revolvers used to murder the officers were already heavily regulated, the British government chose to respond to this crime by implementing shotgun control (despite the fact that recent studies had indicated that gun crime in Great Britain was under control and that shotgun controls would have no practical effect). The current gun control laws now enforced in England--virtually banning civilian ownership of firearms--were implemented in the late 1980s, following a mass murder in which a licensed gun owner killed eighteen people with a handgun and a semiautomatic Kalashnikov (AK-47) rifle. Because England lacks the strong gun culture of the United States, a strong media outcry for stringent gun control was met with little resistance. Though this massacre was the first and only time a centerfire, semiautomatic rifle was used to commit a murder in England, it led to the confiscation of every centerfire, semiautomatic rifle in the nation. The only protest from what passes for a gun lobby in Great Britain was an insistence that the government pay the owners of confiscated guns a small fee (a fraction of the actual value of most of the guns) for each firearm confiscated. Gun control advocates tend to focus on the NUMBER of GUN crimes in countries with strict gun control, rather than focusing on the RATE of VIOLENT crimes in those countries, for two very simple reasons. First, focusing on crime numbers, rather than crime rates, allows gun control advocates to give the appearance that there is a much greater disparity than there actually is between the level of violent crime in America and the levels of violent crime in much smaller nations, such as England. Also, focusing on the low numbers of gun deaths in countries with strict gun control allows gun control advocates to avoid mentioning that many of these countries, such as England, have actually seen an increase in their overall homicide rates, since the implementation of strict gun control laws. And most of the countries, like Australia, that have seen a decrease in their homicide rates, since the implementation of strict gun control laws, have not seen as sharp a decrease during that time period as the United States of America, where gun control laws have remained virtually unchanged. In the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s, the homicide rate in England was 1/10th the homicide rate in the United States. In 1987 English citizens were shocked by a mass shooting at a public market. In 1989 American citizens were shocked by a mass shooting at a fast food restaurant. England responded by implementing the strict gun control laws currently in place. Americans chose not to implement stricter gun control. By the early ‘90s, the homicide rate in England was 1/8th the homicide rate in America. Today the homicide rate in England is 1/4th the homicide rate in America. Since the implementation of England’s strict gun control laws, England’s homicide rate has gone up; whereas, America’s homicide rate has gone down. In 1989 the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice published a report showing that the Canadian homicide rate remained, for the most part, stable in the decade following the passage of the 1977 law requiring citizens to receive a Firearms Acquisition Certificate from police before purchasing a firearm. If you compare 1976 homicide statistics to 2006 homicide statistics, both the U.S. and Canadian homicide rates have declined by 33%. Strictly based on those numbers, there is no evidence that the Canadian gun controls implemented in 1977 have accomplished anything. Gun control advocates never mention countries like Mexico and Russia, in which gun control laws are VERY strict and murder rates are three to four times higher than in the United States. In truth, you can no more compare the United States to England, where virtually nobody has a gun and the violent crime rate is very low, than you can compare the United States to Switzerland, where virtually everybody has a gun and the violent crime rate is very low. For more information read The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies by David B. Kopel: http://www.amazon.com/Samurai-Mountie-Cowboy-Controls-Democracies/dp/0879757566/ref=sr_1_1/105-2214740-6201234?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194822919&sr=8-1 The introduction can be read here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0879757566/ref=sib_dp_pt/105-2214740-6201234#reader-link I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
  15. If I recall my history, your nation's gun control laws were of great benefit to your nation's government in November of 1938. Gestapo agents met with virtually no armed resistance when they went around torching synagogues and Jewish owned businesses. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.