Perry: Guns Everywhere = Solution to Crime

It matters not how peaceful a person claims they are; no matter that they have never fired a gun; no matter that they have never taken it out or pointed it with threatening ("self defensive") intent.

Every single gun owner has imagined it. Every single gun owner imagines firing at a human. Every one has taken the stance, heard the explosion, smelled the smell, seen the blood in their minds, the falling body.

Perhaps the more Travis-Bickleoid have also imagined the confrontation, backtalk, the pause before shooting, bang, cries, thud, sobs, victory.

You don't buy a gun to see its profile on the wall. Its intent is inherent and no gun owner avoids being co-opted.

Just think if someone on any of those flights would have had guns. No one would have had to deal with 9/11. Guns solve all problems. I saw a guy being mean to an old lady today. If I had a gun I could have shot him and that would have solved the issue.

I didn't read all these comments because, quite frankly, im lazy.

But, IF one of the VA Tech students that was attacked happened to have a CHL and happened to have a firearm, and also happened to put 3 or 4 JHP's into the shooter, would they have been arrested for carrying in a prohibited location?

just a hypothetical that puts a real life situation into perspective.

Around hafe a million People now carry concieled handguns in TX. These are good people they had back ground checks by the FBI. They don't show off there guns. If they need them thay have them. and if there is danger the guns will be pulled out not for fun not to be like the wild west just to save human life. In the class we learn to use our weapon only if there is no other way to save our life or the life of another person. Allowing lisenced people over 21 to cary in schools would not make more problems. You would not see them unless there were needed to save life. If you ever go to Walmart or the bank or taco bell odds are there is a armed chl holder there but you never know and there is no problem

ahh...the age-tested strategy of slapping the media-horse on the ass.

step 1. sensationalize & polarize the issue.

step 2. contextualize the issue within everything that's ever happened; conflate as much as possible (see posts above).

step 3. get people really heated up, then have a 'court of public opinion'.

step 4. make sure the extremist wing-nuts go get their friends and friends of friends and friends of friends of friends to vote. this ensures the 'wrong side' always wins.

step 5. congratulations! you got yourself a constitutional amendment/elected public official!

and over and over and over...

The guy's just worthless, I think.

Anon, you must have moved into Texas within the past year cause Gov. Goodhair most certainly wasn't worthless to the thousands of people he moved into Texas when Shrub couldn't do anything for them after Katrina.

He's an alright guy at times like this and after Katrina. I really can't hate him as much as I want to. Feeling like I'm surrounded by irrational liberal finger-pointing assholes certainly doesn't hurt either. You dems really should do something to help your image. You're turning me into a goddamn libertarian.

hello everyone. please see today's Statesman for a recent update on this story. it appears that a bill on this may actually come before the Leg this session. the story's called "Campus Gun Ban Has Some Foes," and it's written by David Rauf.

we'll keep you updated on this as/if it unfolds.

s (the author)

It seems to me that allowing people to express their right to bear arms (i.e., carry firearms) is a necessary and inalienable right. People deserve the opportunity to protect themselves, and to feel safe, in a world where senseless and random violence does indeed occur. As someone said earlier, law enforcement can't be everywhere at once, and it doesn't hurt to have people out there who can independently fend for themselves if the law isn't around - we shouldn't just have to depend on cops all the time.

Having said that, it also makes plain sense to me that guns just shouldn't be present in certain social settings. Bars, where people are drunk, is the best example of this. No matter how responsible and disciplined a person is, when alcohol enters the equation, decision-making goes south. The current law prevents guns in bars, and I think it should be left alone.

If anything needs to be confronted by lawmakers, it's the proliferation of guns on the black market...the illegal sale of guns. There's your major problem, it seems to me. Responsible, disciplined people carrying firearms is not much of a concern in my book.

Now, I don't know much about the concealed handgun law, and I don't know much about what the requirements are exactly. But here's where I basically stand:

- If the process for obtaining a concealed handgun license is very, very stringent, then I don't have a problem with licensed people carrying weapons around in public, as the law allows them to do right now. In other words, if the filter for granting a CHL is currently very demanding for applicants, that's great. If not, tighten it.

- But, I don't think that the law should be changed to allow such people to carry their guns in places like bars, where self-control can dissipate with the consumption of booze.

- There should be a major crackdown of epic proportions on the illegal sale of firearms. Plain and simple. There are lots of people out there who just shouldn't have a gun. Civil rights go right out the door when your exercise of these rights can endanger people, and the approach we use with regard to the illegal purchase of deadly weapons should be peremptory, not reactionary.

Leave the law for licensed holders alone. Clamp down hard on the law for unlicensed holders.

I personally think guns in church is a divine idea.

Can you imagine if all the idiots who voted for Kinky because he was cool or Carol Keeton, Cougar Mellencamp Strayhorn because, well I don't know, because they thought it was cool she exploited her grandkids for political gain, would have actually voted for the primary candidate who stood a chance. We wouldn't be having a conversation about "Govenor" Perry. He'd just be another Tom Delay at this point.

He was referred for non voluntary mental health screening - which under virginia state law makes him ineligible to purchase a firearm. He purchased the guns illegally, and the gun dealer sold them illegally.

How many people have been shot on 6th street in the last 10 years? How many have been shot by CHL holders?

The answer: few, and none.

1. Dead Guy had broken into Shooter's (CHL holder) vehicle, and

2. Shooter brandished pistol and interrupted vehicle burglary,

3. Dead Guy was fleeing, but verbalizing death threats (i.e., me and my gang know who you are, and we're gonna get you),

4. Dead Guy was shot in the back or from behind,

5. Shooter was arrested, charged with murder, and acquitted (after putting up a high dollar defense),

6. Shooter (or his girlfriend/ wife/ fiance/ whatever) was child of the owner of the Black Cat Lounge, and Shooter & SO were coming from there when the vehicle burglary was interrupted.

Because of #6, the Shooter shouldn't have been armed- the bar derived 51%+ of their revenue from alcohol, and having a firearm there, even licensed, is a felony.

These "wild west" scenarios everyone is fond of mentioning were the same sad, tired, arguments they used when the concealed handgun laws first came into being. And guess what? They were wrong. (Really, though. look back at media coverage when the bill was originally passed. Look at statements by Rodney Ellis and others - it's funny to see the same debunked arguments about the wild west shoot outs used again)

This isn't about allowing just anyone to carry a gun into a public place. It's about allowing someone that passes a stringent set of standards to carry a gun for their self defense.



Just look at the murder rate of CHL holders versus the general populace. Look at the violent crime rate of CHL holders vs. the rest of the population. In both cases, CHL holders account for less than one percent of criminals.

There is a huge difference between CHL holders now and what it would become if everyone did it. Saying to make it illegal to drink and have a CH is just stupid. Just as its illegal for people to carry ,a gun into a bar, even with a CHL, people won't stop drinking because they're strapped. They'll just be the same drunken wanting to fight idiots as usual, just this time they'll be a duel in the streets instead of a couple of punches getting thrown.

I would normally support this idea but since it came from Rick Perry I can't bring myself to do it.

Well hey, since we're pulling the race card, I think I'll make diseases just to kill half of myself off so the other half of me can survive long enough to put guns in the hands of all the darker races to kill 'em all off...is that what I should do, Lonnie? *groans*

Fact is, when Austin encountered a gentleman who felt the need to play sniper from a tower, it wasn't just the law who showed up to stop him from continuing his violent rampage...the good ol' boys with their own guns showed up to lend a hand. What the hell would be so bad about stopping crime right in the middle of it occurring?

And why, Lonnie, do you think others of your own race (hey, you brought us here) kill one another off? Are they all licensed to carry their firearms, or are they simply carrying them against the law? This is what it boils down to...apples and oranges...those who are licensed, and those who can't obtain a license because they are not able.

I find your view to be rather jaded, and while it is slightly entertaining to see you try to become yet another Al Sharpton screaming that the stripper was raped, you fail miserably at attempting to get your point across when you pull such bs race cards. You'll always be trumped.

p.

Just curious - have you ever fired a gun?

lonnie.k

You think I carry a gun because I'm afraid of a particular race?

Bullshit.

I don't care what color you are - in a dark alley, everyone is a potential threat, and color doesn't matter.

The reason I own guns is fear of, for lack of a better term 'whitey.' You might also call him 'the man' or 'the government' but that is what scares me most of all. The whittling away of our constitutional freedoms.

That is not scares me.

Also, way to go on calling all white people racist *and* murderers in one sentence.

/heading back to the secret white-people-lab to cook up new diseases to poison everyone else.

Are you saying, Lonnie, that because you're black you should have a right to carry a gun onto a college campus?

I'm Hispanic. And I didn't pull the race card because race is not the issue when it comes to gun control.

What I think, basically, is that everyone who has posted here today is full of it. And obviously all the commenters are anglo. Not once has the issue of race been raised on this forum today.

Perry says "We need guns everywhere," i.e., everyone should be strapped. And so who's gonna get shot? Let me tell you. African-Americans. Just like they introduced crack and HIV into black low-income neighborhoods in the 70s and 80s, so now they're trying to make it so that it's even easier for blacks to kill themselves with guns. Gang warfare.

Also, consider the myth of the "boogie man," the thief that you have to protect your house and your daughter from.

The black man in America. As a black man, I find all of this self-serving and offensive against my race. And everyone that's a "progressive" on here doesn't even say anything. What the hell.

The proclivity towards violence in our society today is astounding, especially in regards to our leaders. What is especially disheartening though is our natural inclination to go along with what others say without questioning it themselves. I believe this is what Perry is doing here in playing "the political game" and advocating such a position. I think it goes along with what Anon was saying. If we could all just learn to think for ourselves without resorting to some form of one-ups-manship we would be better off. This call out of guns everywhere is simply a one-ups-manship mentality be spouted out by some which will surely be to the detriment of others.

Can you imagine if all the idiots who voted for Kinky because he was cool or Carol Keeton, Cougar Mellencamp Strayhorn because, well I don't know, because they thought it was cool she exploited her grandkids for political gain, would have actually voted for the primary candidate who stood a chance. We wouldn't be having a conversation about "Govenor" Perry. He'd just be another Tom Delay at this point.

The fact that he got elected again and that is what scares me. Just knowing that there ain't too many bright ones out there these days leads me to believe that if something like this ever came to a vote it would probably pass and our murder rates would skyrocket...uh....I meant self-defense rates.

cliff, the issue of illegal aliens carrying loaded firearms, to be honest, frightens me. i mean, they can't even learn English, and here we are giving them guns and bullets? sounds like something out of a Spaghetti Western.

No thanks.

the problem with guns is that they naturally trump virtually anything else that a person can bring in a fight. knives, mace, etc- please. and don't give me the nonviolence thing because that won't work when nonrational people are involved. so either everyone needs a gun or no one. normally i'd advocate for the no gun route but as we are in texas and a large amount are currently strapped, maybe we should mandate guns. thus the whole chl thing would be moot if the requirement is there. the only problem then is can you require "illegals" to be strapped. the supreme court may be a problem. ideas?

Oh. Well, I think it's too late to get a bill going in the Texas Legislature, seems like they're done inside of a month. I guess the next best thing is to just spread the word on how ridiculous our Governor is...that way, the ideas he constantly spits out will gain less and less support.

The guy's just worthless, I think.

Anon02: I meant how can we stop Rick Perry from passing this legislation.

Either way, "Nick." That's not the issue.

Violence begets violence. I suppose to you, fighting violence with violence is OK.

A fire extinguisher is poor metaphor, since a gun causes fire. (or I guess if you just yell "bang" it will make that lovely noise it makes).

Give me a statistic that shows there are more mass killings by legally insane people than there are by people with Concealed Handguns and maybe we can have a civilized conversation.

"How about a proposal for a plan to action to stop him?"

Answer: Sorry, but not all problems have solutions. Aside from putting up patrolled barbed-wire fences around college campuses (and THAT may not even work, if the killer is determined enough), or something similarly restrictive on our civil rights, there's no reasonable way to stop guys like Cho Seung-Hui from doing what he did. I think the best you can say is, "Should've had better parenting" and move on. Perhaps, as you move on, you can do your part to make sure the kids you one day have are given a better environment in which to grow up...or, if they're mentally disturbed, for example, perhaps administer the appropriate health care to that child. There's no institutional solution; it's a family one, a peer one. A social one.

Whenever such disasters as these take place, it's so typical of people to immediately (1) look for someone to blame and (2) come up with a "quick fix." I wonder why that is? Could it be because, deep down, we know that each of us shares a piece of the blame for such things occurring?

Of course, big and tough "conservatives" will say NO, while the peaceful, loving "liberals" will say YES. Meh. Whatever.

Such events stir us up so much conflict among us because they reveal the inherent limitations of a parliamentary democracy. Sorry, but in this form of government, total control of risk just isn't an option. Hence, no solution to these types of disasters exists within the bounds of our governmental framework.

Only in a totalitarian regime, where civil rights are severely constricted in the name of central governmental control (and the safety of the populace), can such disasters as these be prevented as best as possible by government and laws. Short of that, no dice.

But please, continue with this meaningless debate over "who's to blame" and "how he could have been stopped." As the "answer" to such "questions" becomes more and more clear the longer the debate progresses, my point only becomes more and more convincing.

"By the way, Cho Seung-Hui acquired those guns legally."

He was referred for non voluntary mental health screening - which under virginia state law makes him ineligible to purchase a firearm. He purchased the guns illegally, and the gun dealer sold them illegally.

You are wrong.

This isn't about one crazy guy who goes on a shotting rampage every ten years.... it's about the violence that will rise when we allow guns in schools at all times.

By the way, Cho Seung-Hui acquired those guns legally.

I can right now, under texas law, carry as many guns as I want on 6th street. So can anyone else with a CHL.

How many people have been shot on 6th street in the last 10 years? How many have been shot by CHL holders?

The answer: few, and none.

I'll take over under bets if anything like this ever passes that it will take 72 hours before some douchebag frat kid shoots another in the face in a bar because his sorority piece is flirting with someone else.

I've seen people stabbed on 6th street as a result of one guy bumping into another, what do you think would have happened if he'd had a gun?

"I assure you that he wouldn't have been deterred if guns were allowed on campus."

And if one of the students in the class had a gun, and shot him in chest after he killed the first handful of kids out of the 30 in that room, would he have been deterred then?

"The fact that our gun laws are so lax allowed this mentally unstable kid to get a gun in the first place. Reducing gun control is just going to allow it to be easier for these massacres to happen."

The merchant who sold him this gun broke virginia state law. The shooter broke laws (besides all the murder) by illegally carrying guns. But, by all means, lets make more laws. In fact, lets just ban guns alltogether. That should reduce crime, right?

After all, prohibition of any item or substance almost eliminates it from society, and makes us all much, much safer, wouldn't you agree?

I call bullshit on the "guns reduce crime" bit.

The socio-economic dynamics of small towns where everyone knows each other are much much much different from big cities. There is no evidence whatsoever suggesting that relaxing gun control is going to reduce violence in places where there are thousands of desperate people living in poverty.

And you're still going to have wackos like the kid in Virginia who are going to kill no matter how many people carry guns. I assure you that he wouldn't have been deterred if guns were allowed on campus.

The fact that our gun laws are so lax allowed this mentally unstable kid to get a gun in the first place. Reducing gun control is just going to allow it to be easier for these massacres to happen.

How about a proposal for a plan to action to stop him?

Also, we should ban fire extinguishers, and make it illegal for citizens to try to put out fires themselves! Someone could get hurt! leave it to the trained professionals, please!

Is something on fire? No need to worry, call the fire department, then just kick back and wait to be rescued.

The police are NOT paid to protect you. They are there to enforce the law. A cop is not obligated to defend you, your property or your safety.

A real citizen can do that for him or herself.

Someone trying to rape or rob or murder you? Just as the perpetrator to pause for a moment, and allow you to phone the proper authorities!

Hey mermaidshoes.

Where were the 'trained professionals' at VATech?

They did a *wonderful* job of protecting the student body.

lets give them all promotions!

Keep guns out of the hands of everyone who isn't an goverment official! The only true way to maintain a free democracy!

And yes, guns do function as tools which can PREVENT murder. You point a gun at someone who is/is about to commit a crime - guess what? They just *might* hesitate to commit the crime!

And Murder? Self defense is not murder.

guns don't exist for protection. they exist to kill. TO KILL. murder. die. death. dead. game over. bye bye. "protection" is just a nice way to say "kill." so let's rewrite perry's statements with that in mind:

"I think it makes sense for Texans to be able to KILL deranged individuals, whether they're in church, or whether on a college campus or wherever they are." shooting people in church. nice. i thought there was, like, a commandment against that or something? i guess jesus was quite the gun-slinger...

"The idea that you're going to exempt MURDER from a particular place is nonsense to me." the idea that the texas governor supports willy-nilly killing is nonsense to me.

i'd rather keep guns in the hands of people who know how to use them, like police and stuff. isn't that why we have those guys around? seriously.

Ann Richards was a wonderful woman, and governor.

She fought the CHL law on the grounds that it would bring about a 'wild west mentality.'

She was wrong.

Rick Perry is a godawful douchebag, a terrible governor and a laughable closet case to boot.

In this instance, I agree with his position.

First time for everything, I guess.

I have a CHL, and I carry almost everywhere.

I've never touched a drop of alcohol in my life, but occasionally go to bars with friends. I'd like to be able to carry, given the increased likelihood that there might be violence.

Don't make it illegal to carry in bars, make it illegal to carry while drinking.

As to carrying on campus, I'm all for that, too.

well, of course it's biased. it's a blog, dave.

certainly, in the face of horrific tragedies where madmen shoot up an entire school leaves us thinking we are helpless to prevent such things. this naturally leads us to extreme, protectionist conclusions like removing prohibitions on firearms in certain public places.

this is the typical way that arguments with extremists go these days. extremists go high, extremists at the other end go low, and the majority of us -- the ones with reason in the middle -- bear the brunt of these ill-conceived ideas when they become public policy.

can you really believe that allowing people to carry loaded firearms in bars, on university campuses and other such places is the BEST option among all the ways we could go here. in fact, it seems like one of the worst.

typical right-wing solution to any complex problem -- blow 'em all to hell.

it appears, dave, that you have not thought your position through.

Since preventing deranged motivated killers from breaking the laws and bringing guns into areas which guns are prohibited is not an option; allowing folks with carry permits to take there guns anywhere might not be such a terrible idea.

The bias of your article is clear and must be addressed. The Old West wasn't nearly as "wild" as everybody wants to remember it. The TV/Movies version of constant gun fights is way way way out of proportion. Most folks were civil, crime was low, women could walk the streets at night without fear of being assaulted.

The fact that deranged criminals will not obey any law you concoct should give you pause. Maybe stopping law abiding citizens from excercising their rights isn't the right course of action to be taking.

I don't want any of the people on Red River carrying guns when I'm drinking with them. Everyone seems to be unstable enough as it is, I wouldn't want to introduce another variable as we argue about the Arcade Fire.

I envision the fashionistas at Beauty Bar wearing hip (no pun intended) holsters. No one needs that, just like no one needs tights under skirts and those belts cinched up around your tits.

or the medaphor: it's like a baloon, if you squeeze one side, the other shoots out.

I'm taking mine to the governor's mansion.

I'm taking mine to the governor's mansion.