Douva

Quote

Thanks for feeding the troll...that post was way too long to provide an accurate response...

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.

Quote

If a maniac with a gun starts shootin' up a school, and students are allowed to carry, and feel the need to fight back, and everyone starts whipping their guns out, what happens when there's 30 people in a hallway shooting at who they think is the shooter, but is just another guy with a gun?

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

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

My appearance on Cam & Company (Sirius Patriot 144 radio):

http://www.concealedcampus.org/cam_and_company_022208.mp3

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

Fox News - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8614016266479174980&hl=en

CNN - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2011328849017817632&hl=en

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

Quote

February 6, 2008 -- RUNNING as a conservative, John McCain rolled up huge victories last night in New York, New Jersey and beyond.

But if history is any guide, the McCain we've seen of late on the campaign trail is the most conservative McCain we'll ever see.

He has taken a commanding lead in the GOP primary by packaging himself as the "true conservative" committed to limited government, to slashed federal spending and to an avowedly conservative Supreme Court.

He claims the mantle of Ronald Reagan. He even claims the mantle of Barry Goldwater, conservatism's crack version of Reagan. But as McCain clinches the GOP nomination, he will begin his usual leftward lurch.

He will return to his lifelong positions as soft on illegal immigration, skeptical of tax cuts and favoring strong federal control over things like campaign financing.

McCain's appeal to independents and even the left is what makes him such a powerhouse in the general election.

It is also precisely what has so many in the Republican base so wildly fearful of handing him the keys to the kingdom.

If the Republican Party expands "because we have a candidate who's going out trying to attract liberals by being like them, then the party's going to be around but you won't recognize it," thundered radio king Rush Limbaugh.

The Republican Party will "be over as it exists now," he warns.

To understand just how McCain has managed to limp to the front of the GOP field, look no further than the outcome of yesterday's West Virginia Republican Convention.

At the outset, victory was in the air for Mitt Romney, the flip-flopping former Massachusetts governor.

He is universally loathed by all the other GOP candidates, who banded together to give all their votes to Mike Huckabee - simply to deny Romney a win.

The depressing GOP field that has paved a path to victory for McCain also gave surprising wins last night to Huckabee in Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee, as well as in his home state of Arkansas.

Still, McCain has so radicalized key conservatives that some have vowed to turn themselves into suicide voters next November by pulling the lever for Hillary Rodham Clinton over him.

This last-minute blitz against McCain by Limbaugh and others, however, comes far too late.

But if those conservatives sit out the general election, they will help Democrats make history by electing either the first black president or the first female president next November.

[email protected]

Note: As a former Texas Delegate I never thought I would see the day John McCain would receive the Republican Nomination for President. I've even said so many times within this forum.

After watching last nights primary returns and seeing that the Dems base is fired up with turn out almost 3 to 1 when compared to the Republicans, left me laughing to myself.

I said to myself, "Self", do I sit this one out or do I commit VOTER SUICIDE and cast a vote for Hillary.

Casting a Vote for Hillary, seems to me the only answer, at least if everything goes to hell, I can blame it on the LIBS

History is in the making, Three Liberals Running for the presidency, (1) posing as a Rep. conservative, the other two most likely being the First Black man or Woman to represent the Free World.

Cheers, This has been truely an amazing election period, that I can remember.

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.

Quote

Yep... got one of those dreaded notices in the mailbox. A 20 year old sex offender now lives less than 2000 feet from my home. Apparently he was convicted of having sex with a 11 year old girl, but the notice seems to say he served no jail time??? What the fucking hell?

My neighbors across the street, who have a 15 year old daughter, are pissed too. They came over yesterday with a petition, and of course, I was the first to sign it (for the perp to move). We all have seen him walking up and down the street by our houses several times.

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.

Quote

Quote

....
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?

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.

Quote

but I really doubt that school violence is actually increasing, or that it warrants teachers carrying guns, and would like to see statistics proving otherwise.

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?

Quote

News:

Counselors' heroism foils terror attack in high school

In Jerusalem, two Palestinian gunmen wearing IDF uniforms burst into a high school.

The terrorists infiltrated and entered a library room where seven of the boarding school's counselors were meeting. Dressed as security guards, and armed with a knife and what appeared to be a gun -- it later turned out to be a toy -- ordered the seven to line up on one side of the room. A counselor, realizing they were terrorists, drew his personal firearm and opened fire. The terrorists managed to stab two of the counselors before falling dead.

At the same time, the study hall -- adjacent to the library -- was packed with students.

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

"Factors associated with the accident were the moose...."

That made me laugh out loud.

Quote

Quote

....
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.

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

Quote

The very rare shootings as well as very few gun crimes here [in my country] do confirm our gun laws are working fine.

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.

Quote

http://www.xenutv.com/bridge/index.html

About an hour long docu-drama about scientology.


Facts about the film according to the IMDB website:

Quote

* (Brett Hanover) his is the first critical feature length movie about Scientology. Several ex-Scientologists helped write the film, and it includes actual Scientology materials.

* When searching for Xenu in Google, like the woman did in the movie, Google displays a message below the search results saying the page has been removed from Google's index due to legal action by Scientology.

* This movie was filmed in only five days at a hotel in Norway, to prevent interference by Scientologists.

* Soon after the online release of the film, director Brett Hanover posted on his website that "due to copyright issues, I ask that this film be withdrawn from circulation... Do not contact me concerning this film, I am no longer supporting it".

I just checked Brett Hanover's website. It contains his resume, his photography, and lists of films he has made, but there is no mention of The Bridge. Apparently the Scientologists were able to "persuade" him not to release the film anymore.

Did he asked to have it pulled because of pressure from the Church of Scientology or because it's unwatchable? It's like watching the thesis film of an undergrad from a British film school. I'm 1/3 of the way through it, and I've already lost all interest in knowing anything about Scientology.

Are you going to build an AK-47 or a semiautomatic 7.62x39mm Kalashnikov?

Granted, both are typically referred to as AK-47s, but I just thought we should clarify whether or not you're talking about committing a felony.

By the way, some of those posted pictures are of tricked-out Saiga 7.62x39mms and Saiga .308s. They're both based on the Kalashnikov receiver design, but they're not true Kalashnikovs. Even the 7.62x39mm version doesn't accept standard AK mags unless you modify either the receiver or the mags.

Quote

Well, I think its time we disarmed the Americans and turned their guns into ploughshears for the third world countries. What do you as a responsible member of the world think. If they can't play nicely then we need to make sure they do!

I think they should definitely try.

Molon labe!

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The reason I ask is because you singled out FOX. If FOX is the only perp in you opinion it makes a big difference. Don't you think?

I'm sorry--Was I supposed to single out CNN for a stupid decision made by the Fox network?

No, you are misunderstanding my point. Sorry if I am not clear.

On another note, I do not see the big deal. Yes words are words but not all agree with what you, me or how anybody else sees proper use of some words.

Just me I guess

If you have examples of other networks doing the same type of thing, point them out, and we'll discuss those as well. Otherwise, quit trying to turn this into something it's not.

This is not an objective issue. The words "homicide" and "suicide" have different meanings; therefore, it is not logical for Fox News to try to attribute the same meanings to "homicide bomber" and "suicide bomber."

the examples are many but it would seem you have not seen them, oh well.

as for your examples, I think either word fits well. I think you are making something out of it that is not there

"Thirty-two people were killed today by a homicide gunman."

"A homicide knife attack claimed three lives at a downtown club last night."

"The notorious homicide strangler has claimed another life."

Between the homicide killers and the sexual assault rapists, I just don't know what this world is coming to.

Perhaps we should follow the lead of the 1993 Sylvester Stallone film Demolition Man and start referring to homicides as "murder-death=kills."

Quote

Quote

Quote

The reason I ask is because you singled out FOX. If FOX is the only perp in you opinion it makes a big difference. Don't you think?

I'm sorry--Was I supposed to single out CNN for a stupid decision made by the Fox network?

No, you are misunderstanding my point. Sorry if I am not clear.

On another note, I do not see the big deal. Yes words are words but not all agree with what you, me or how anybody else sees proper use of some words.

Just me I guess

If you have examples of other networks doing the same type of thing, point them out, and we'll discuss those as well. Otherwise, quit trying to turn this into something it's not.

This is not an objective issue. The words "homicide" and "suicide" have different meanings; therefore, it is not logical for Fox News to try to attribute the same meanings to "homicide bomber" and "suicide bomber."

Quote

The reason I ask is because you singled out FOX. If FOX is the only perp in you opinion it makes a big difference. Don't you think?

I'm sorry--Was I supposed to single out CNN for a stupid decision made by the Fox network?

The thing I always found interesting about a million versus a billion is that, if you were to get a dollar a second, from the moment you were born, you'd be a millionaire before you were twelve days old, but you wouldn't be a billionaire until you were over the age of thirty-one.

Quote

A. A billion seconds ago it was 1959.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a billion seconds ago (assuming we're using the American definition), wasn't it 1976?

If we're using the British definition of a billion, a billion seconds ago was (approximately) 29702 B.C.

Quote

`American'        	`British'

10^12	trillion	billion

10^15	quadrillion	thousand billion

10^18	quintillion	trillion

10^21	sextillion	thousand trillion

10^24	septillion	quadrillion

10^27	octillion	thousand quadrillion

10^30	nonillion	quintillion

10^33	decillion	thousand quintillion

I think the British system makes more sense, up to a point, but shouldn't it go:

Million
Thousand Million
Billion
Thousand Billion
Million Billion
Trillion
Thousand Trillion
Million Trillion
Billion Trillion
Quadrillion

Quote

Quote

Seriously, Fox News, is this really necessary? Do the conservatives really need their own flavor of political correctness? Aren't most terrorist bombers attempting homicide? Isn't the real distinction that some of them are attempting it by blowing up themselves? Isn't that distinction the reason the term "suicide bomber" was coined in the first place?

Timothy McVeigh was a homicide bomber, but he wasn't a suicide bomber. I suppose it's also possible to be a suicide bomber without being a homicide bomber.

Words have meaning; quit clouding the issues with rhetoric.

Help me understand your position a bit better. What other terms or use of words by any media outlet (including FOX) do you think are out of line?

Why do I need other examples? This discussion isn't about other terms; it's about the terms "suicide bomber" and "homicide bomber."

Isn't it a little redundant to say, "Twenty-three people were killed by a homicide bomber?" Unless Fox News thinks we're going to assume the bomber killed twenty-three people on accident, what is the point of pointing out that the homicide was committed by a HOMICIDE bomber? Couldn't they just say, "Twenty-three people were killed by a bomber?"

When Timothy McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma City federal building, I don't recall any of the reporters referring to him as "homicide bomber Timothy McVeigh;" though, the term would have been just as accurate in that case.

The adjective "suicide" is used to define the method by which the bombing took place. Calling suicide bombers "homicide bombers" is like calling kamikaze pilots "killer pilots." It doesn't MEAN the same thing.