Rape Victim to testify on Nevada Campus Carry Law

[RamboLiberal]

The ability to carry a firearm on Nevada’s college campuses could have prevented her brutal rape, says a victim who will testify before the Senate Government Affairs Committee tomorrow in Carson City.

Reno resident Amanda Collins will tell her story to legislators who will be weighing the merits of Senate Bill 231, the “campus carry” law proposed by Sen. John Lee, D-North Las Vegas. If passed, the legislation would lift prohibitions on carrying firearms on Nevada college campuses.

Soft spoken and small in stature, Amanda Collins said she was defenseless when serial rapist and convicted murderer James Biela attacked her in a University of Nevada Reno parking garage.

Though she was a licensed gun owner with a concealed weapons permit, Collins was unarmed when Biela assaulted her less than 300 yards from a campus police office.

http://www.nevadanewsbureau.com/2011/03/17/rape-victim-to-testify-on-campus-carry-law/

As female who for nearly 8 years had to walk into a darkened parking lot at a community college and then a parking garage at a campus located in the city I can identify with this woman. The state said you are fine to carry a gun, but oh wait a minute, in a college building we no longer trust you. Sorry that you can't defend yourself.

[PavePusher]

1. I wonder how many of the people who advocate against legal firearms on campus...

volunteer to provide security for others?

My bet is... none. And I'll put $5 on it.

[Hoopla Phil]

2. I was JUST going to post this. K and R!

[VoteProgressive]

3. Honestly, adult CCW have caused very little problems in America. nt

[DWC]

4. Words can not describe

the debt we owe this survivor for her courage and strength of character in helping others legally defend themselves from such horror.

Semper Fi,

[spin]

5. K&R (n/t)

[cleanhippie]

6. And the anti-RKBA crew is so quiet.....

[one-eyed fat man]

7. Well, it is a little awkward...

They are always the ones who claim you don't need to defend yourself. Just give the criminal what he wants...

[DissedByBush]

8. I bet they don't think of rape when they say that

Hey, just give the criminal what he wants.

[Glassunion]

9. Just leave it at home.

No one "needs" that in a classroom. It's uncivilized or something.

Leave it to the police, they are trained and accountable or something.

Wash... Rinse... Repeat if desired...

[TPaine7]

10. There is no thread where rights supporters fear to tread,

Why isn't that the case for those who oppose rights?

Let's hear from those who oppose women like this having the tools of self-defense on campus. Surely some of you have the courage of your convictions. I want to see you say that it is just and proper that this woman was forbidden to have her weapon when she was brutally raped.

Surely not all rights opponents are unable to address this squarely and honestly!

[rl6214]

11. Still nothing from the Anti-RKBA crowd

nuthin but crickets chirping,

and the RKBA crowd.

[MrModerate]

12. Crap.

Grabbed from behind and a gun put to her head. And her opportunity to get at her gun (In her purse? Strapped to her thigh? Clenched in her fist?) would have been when?

The victim thinks she would have been able to defend herself. On one level, that's a great thing to hear: it indicates she is fighting back against the trauma she suffered. As far as her mental health goes, that's probably a good sign.

But it doesn't have any bearing on whether carrying firearms on campus is a good idea.

What would be a good idea is sensible behavior. Students organizing themselves to help keep each other safe. Not walking in dark parking lots by yourself. Making the university install proper lighting and surveillance equipment. Hiring enough security guards.

This is not rocket science.

[TPaine7]

13. I'm guessing you would have advised her to stay in safer areas...like near the POLICE STATION

wouldn't you?

Be honest.

[MrModerate]

16. I'm sorry, I can't figure out what your comment is supposed to mean. Honest. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. FTA: "Colllins was unarmed when Biela assaulted her less than 300 yards from a campus police office"

[onehandle]

61. It's an insult. nt

[TPaine7]

65. No it is not.

It's an invitation to honestly examine his mindset.

Most people who oppose other's rights to carry weapons propose things like stayiing in "safe" areas as part of a safety strategy--places like the areas near the POLICE STATION. But that's precisely where the victim was brutally raped. A policeman wasn't with her, but a gun could have been, but for a silly and wrongheaded law.

An invitation to answer uncomfortable questions is not an insult, except to someone to whom reality itself is an insult. I like to imagine that people I'm talking to don't fall in that category.

What is insulting about asking someone to admit that their (probable) advice would have been worthless? Do you feel insulted if your premises are challenged, your assumptions questioned? Are you threatened by reality?

[DWC]

14. Finally, an "arm-chair-quarterback"

who is brazen enough to openly blame it on the victim.

Semper Fi,

[MrModerate]

17. I'm very tempted to violate DU principles of civil discourse . . .

But instead I'll just point out that your aspersion is dishonest and deliberately provocative. I did not blame the victim and I resent your suggestion that I did.

Here's the factual case. There are bad people out there. We know this. Women are vulnerable to such bad people in a way that men are not. As a society we have a responsibility to protect each other from bad people. The best way to do that is through solidarity with each other, mutual support, and sensible urban design.

A streetlight in the right place would have been much more effective protection than a handgun. A campus practice of students walking together would have prevented the incident altogether -- a handgun would not.

Solutions to society's problems that involve shooting someone are ineffective on a variety of levels.

[friendly_iconoclast]

19. Collins addressed those issues, and I'm more inclined to believe the victim than a theorist:

From the article:

Collins said she would have been carrying her firearm and would have defended herself that night had campus rules permitted it.

“I know at some point during my attack I could have stopped it,” said Collins. “Had I been able to do so, two other rapes would have been prevented and a life could have been saved.”

....“A call box directly above my head, potentially, while I was being straddled to the ground by James Biela would not have helped me,” said Collins.

[MrModerate]

28. Well, I'd defer to the person was there versus the person who wasn't . . .

Except that this isn't a questions of what did or didn't happen, but what might or might not have happened.

[GreenStormCloud]

20. Your solutions don't work in the real world.

Streetlights? You can't have a streetlight everywhere. There are always going to be dark areas. That is a fact of geometry.

Students walking together? What do you do when there isn't anybody else going where you are going when you are going there? Wait a few hours? Call a cop for an escort? None of those are reasonable. But a gun can always be with you. Combine a gun with situational awareness and it is extremely effective. My wife has used her gun twice to prevent herself from being attacked by a mugger.

Self-defense is extremely effective in detering crime. Criminals don't want to get shot.

Why do people like yourself always want victims to be helpless in the face of crime?

[MrModerate]

27. Smart illumination design -- even with dark areas . . .

Makes it very difficult for perpetrators to operate. Combined with social methods as described in my original post, it can be very effective.

Much more effective than arming and training every woman in America.

[rrneck]

21. Not a bad idea.

Well lit campuses would be a wonderful thing. Great pools of light visible from orbit. And having people troop around like herds of wildebeests is a very efficient solution as well. Of course we could have campus escorts if we could hire a staff of officers to do the job.

All of the solutions you offer are very expensive. Colleges and universities are in dire financial straits now, and you blithely suggest billions of dollars in capital improvements.

Bravo.

[MrModerate]

26. Actually, the "walking around in pairs" . . .

Ya know, as if people cared about each other? That's free. Every organization I've been associated with, be it school or work, has automatically arranged itself so that unaccompanied women are offered an escort to their cars after dark. It's not hard.

And you talk about billions of dollars in capital improvements, by which I assume you mean to retrofit all such campuses nationwide, which seems a small price to pay for personal security. What's the cost of the appalling level of assault on American women?

[lawodevolution]

29. It's nice that you tried a reasonable argument rather than Jpak-ing the thread

But a rapist cannot hold the gun to her head the whole time she was being raped. I'd prefer that she had the tool to defend herself so at one point during the rape she could get her gun and finish the goblin. Then perhaps other rapists would think twice about going on campus to rape. Right now it's pretty safe for rapists on campus.

[rrneck]

30. It's a small price to pay if you have the money.

And of course, you're only talking the campus proper. We cannot ignore the journey to and from campus. Students frequently have to use off campus parking or simply cannot afford a vehicle and have to walk to class. Or do you want colleges and universities to pay for gun lockers and attendants to staff them 24/7 along with escorts to and from home?

I got some of my best studio work done between the hours of midnight and four in the morning in college, as did many of my female peers. The freedom to move about and work when we wish is not lightly to be given away. Why should students have to cluster together for safety? Why should they have to adjust schedules already overcrowd with coursework, access to shared equipment and space, and frequently an outside job? Why do people always blithely demand others make concessions to their ideology without remedy?

I never cease to be amazed at people who assume the university experience is confined to attending lectures as if all that happens in college is filling up heads like gas tanks.

[MrModerate]

32. It's a larger issue than college campuses, although this discussion started there.

Sexual assaults happen because of the same reason any crime occurs: motive and opportunity. Motivation to rape is a subject for an entirely different discussion, but opportunity is one area where civic policy can make a huge difference.

Is it fair that an unaccompanied woman is more at risk of assault at four in the morning than a man is? It it fair that the vast majority of sexual assaults are against women? Of course not. Nevertheless, that's the way things happen and the smartest response is to prevent them from happening by -- as I said before -- civic policy and cooperative behavior.

The notion of arming and training half the population of the country strikes me as both impracticable and unwise. And probably ultimately more expensive than sensible urban design and colleagues helping colleagues.

[TPaine7]

34. "The notion of arming and training half the population of the country"

is a straw man of your invention.

We favor respecting the rights of a self-selected subset of the sane, law-abiding, adult female population to carry concealed weapons on campus as well as off campus for the purposes of self-defense.

[MrModerate]

36. OK, but how can that be effective when all the other women . . .

Are undefended (by your definition)?

And the answer to questions about improving security infrastructure is answered with "well, they can always carry guns?"

[oneshooter]

42. The issue of whether a female student carries a firearm for

defense or not is a personal choice. If they decide not to take advantage of the law then they can take their chances with the options you provided. Firearms ownership, and use, is a very personal choice and one not taken lightly.
Those that do chose to purchase a firearm and obtain a CHL would be well advised to also seek some form of additional training in self defense. Simply carrying it around with you ain't enough.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[rl6214]

45. You can build up the infrastructure all you want

There is no way in hell the infrastructure, walking with friends or any of the other bs ideas is going to protect the woman getting off work and having to walk to the outskirts of campus or the top of the parking garage, where there are cameras to record the assault and the campus cops who are undertrained and understaffed can investigate it after the assault has taken place because there are only two cars patrolling the entire campus.

[GreenStormCloud]

54. Ultimately, everybody is responsible for their own safety.

That is a simple fact of life. It is impossible for society to see to your personal safety at all times, everywhere. For those times when one may be vunerable to violent attack having a gun on you and being situationally aware and trained gives one your best chance.

Guns aren't hugely expensive when you consider that a good gun can last a lifetime, and that during those 50+ years there is an excellent chance that you will need it at least once. Good training isn't expensive either. There are lots of good books and videos, and training aids that can bring the cost of practice down considerably.

[rrneck]

35. Well, when you get that done let me know,

until then people should be able to defend themselves without having to jump though hoops to do it.

Would that nobody needed a gun at all. Unfortunately, the world just doesn't work that way. Whatever you do in the way of infrastructure improvements will always be behind the curve because self defense functions within a fluid tactical environment. The only sure way to stop violence against anybody is to get rid of the bad guys, and that is an impossibility. If we can't get rid of the bad guys, we have to give people the freedom to deal with them whatever way they think is best.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I'd like nothing better than for colleges and universities to be nice secure bubbles of intellectual activity and good karma, but it ain't gonna happen. And I am simply unwilling to reply to security concerns of people with "tough shit, that's just the way it is". If students want to travel in pairs or any other sort of collective response to the vicissitudes of life, that's fine. But students who are unwilling or unable to do so should not be compelled to because of an ideology that simply ignores their wishes or the particulars of their lives.

[MrModerate]

37. And you don't consider procuring a gun . . .

Going through the licensing and training process, preparing yourself mentally and morally to shoot another person, carrying the gun, making sure it's accessible to you and not accessible to anyone else (like children and criminals) -- that's not jumping through hoops?

[rrneck]

38. Sure.

But those hoops are useful almost everywhere and not just on a college campus. The acquisition of the weapon and the training to use it can be had in about a day. Licensing is another day. Further range time can be had two or three times a month. People go to class every day. When I was in school an eighteen hour course load was about a sixty hour week.

Get the gun and the permit in the summer, learn how to use it and you're good to go for fall. Guns, and the training that go with them are personally portable, and that flexibility is important to a lot of people.

[MrModerate]

41. I see your point, but ultimately my position is that we should be working today . . .

To reduce and control guns in civil situations much as countries like Canada, the UK, and Australia do.

So I think we'll just have to agree to disagree -- so often the case with disagreements deriving from the 2nd Amendment.

Thanks for a civil debate.

[cleanhippie]

43. Ding Ding Ding! WINNER!!!!

But those hoops are useful almost everywhere and not just on a college campus.


Exactly.

[rl6214]

46. that's a process

Not jumping through hoops.

[PavePusher]

52. Some places you don't have to ....

"jump through hoops" to exercise a simple and clear Civil Right.

As it should be.

[TPaine7]

33. Amen.

Why do people always blithely demand others make concessions to their ideology without remedy?

Exactly!!!

Almost without exception, anti-rights folks want to restrict the rights of the innocent while leaving predators perfectly free. I think a woman should be able to go anywhere I can go, and if I take it upon myself to assault her, or to attempt to rape or kidnap her, she should have the tools at her disposal to even the playing field. She is my equal, after all, not a second-class human with a special crime curfew and restricted freedom.

I know most rights opponents don't consciously set out to make women second class citizens, that's simply the real world result of their ideological purity.

[DWC]

23. "The victim thinks she would have been able to defend herself"

She was there. She is trained in the use of and legally permitted to carry a concealed handgun.

The moment-to-moment details of the attack are unknown to anyone but the perpetrator and the victim.

Anyone "second guessing" or "arm-chair-quarterbacking" the victim's personal evaluation of the situation has already violated the principles of civil discourse.

So go for it.

Semper Fi,

[MrModerate]

31. "Second-guessing" breaks the rules for discourse?

Boy you are really full of yourself, aren't you?

Stultus aeternum

[PavePusher]

51. Streetlights are not a solution.

Britian has streetlights AND public cameras, which have done nothing to stop their increasing violent crime.

I know this from personal, first-hand experience.

[PavePusher]

50. And with all your suggestions, what is the recourse of a student if they suffer an assault anyway?

If the school restricts what one may do for themselves, is the school liable for damages incurred?

[wellst0nev0ter]

15. Okay, I Read The Article

And they say there's a study which says that similar laws in other states have actually increased violent incidents on campus. First of all, is that true, and second of all do you really want campuses to become more violent so that people can feel "protected"?

Edit: Also too, you keep raising the victim angle, I'm reminded of a Hmong man who felt threatened by a bunch of white hunters in Wisconsin quite a few years back. He testified that they called him racial slurs and advanced on him, so he felt he had no choice but to shoot a bunch of them. So, was it right? Was it justifiable self-defense? Welp, apparently the courts didn't agree and convicted him of first degree murder.

[GreenStormCloud]

22. I call Bullshit on your Hmong story.

He shot and killed eight hunters. That means that he had to have hunted them, therefore not self-defense. Further, he was not on public land but was trespassing on private land.
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/11/22_williamsb_hmongreax/

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/11/24_williamsb_hmongshootingrea/

However, law enforcement authorities say Vang was the aggressor and hunted down the victims.

SNIP

Of the six men on the scene with Vang, all were shot. Two were reportedly chased down by Vang, and later found shot dead.

SNIP

He admits chasing at least one of the others into the woods, and that he shot at least one unarmed man in the back.

Do you consider shooting an unarmed man in the back to be self-defense?

[wellst0nev0ter]

39. No, I Don't Really See It As Self-Defense

But in fact go to practically every other thread in the Gungeon and you'll see gun-rights activists defending the shootings of unarmed attackers (or would-be attackers). Also remember that Vang was facing a group of armed men, which begs the question if it had been a group of young black men, some armed, some unarmed, threatened a guy by calling him "whitie," but would-be victim opened fire on them indiscriminately, would there even be a trial?

[cleanhippie]

40. More blatant dishonesty. Why is it that you have a problem with being truthful?

But in fact go to practically every other thread in the Gungeon and you'll see gun-rights activists defending the shootings of unarmed attackers (or would-be attackers).

Please, show us where you see this. I'll wait, even though I know you both CAN'T and WON'T.

[wellst0nev0ter]

44. No, Got Better Things To Do

I'll just give you an extra special hint and tell you to look up "Joe Horn" and you'll see my point (or not).

Edit: oh here's a good one.

[cleanhippie]

47. Thats what I thought, you have nothing but dishonesty and excuses.

Thanks for showing us your true colors.

[wellst0nev0ter]

48. And I See No One On The Other Side Actually Countered Any Of My Arguments

They only cast aspersions and ask for research they're too lazy to do by themselves. Good thing I grew out of that "Somebody is wrong ON THE INTERNET" phase, or else I'd be here all day wasting my time with you folks.

[cleanhippie]

49. You have to HAVE an argument to begin with. You have none.

Just excuses and dishonesty. Nothing more.

[GreenStormCloud]

56. The deputy arrived as Horn was about to shoot.

The deputy testified that the two burglars were on Horn's property and had started to advance on Horn. Further, Texas law authorizes the use of deadly force to protect property.

[wellst0nev0ter]

57. Yet Horn Still Shot At Least One Of Them In The Back

When the guy was running away from him.

Funny that.

[GreenStormCloud]

63. Texas Law. He was protecting his neighbor's property.

Don't want to get shot? Don't steal. That is pretty simple.

[wellst0nev0ter]

67. So Stealing Now Merits A Death Sentence?

So we now live in Dickensian England?

I gotta say, I don't want to live in your world.

[GreenStormCloud]

77. I am not claiming the it was self-defense. Only that it was legel. N/T

[wellst0nev0ter]

84. You Mean Legal In Texas

Where, apparently, it's also legal to execute innocent people.

[Katya Mullethov]

88. One need not steal anything

You can even get yourself shot for accidentally breaking into the wrong house .

Nothing ventured , nothing gained I say !

[wellst0nev0ter]

89. Well, As Long As You Give Them A Blindfold And Their Last Cigarette

maybe invite a few of your friends over, drop all pretenses and make it into a real firing squad.

[GreenStormCloud]

91. Nope. Here is the drill:

Hear suspicious noise, get gun, investigate, see and positive ID illegal intruder as being an illegal intruder(s), immediately shoot, call 911 for body(ies) removal. Later watch TV news as dead thug's family describes him as a church choir boy who was getting his life turned around.

[PavePusher]

53. It is quite possible to kill with a single blow from a closed fist.

How does that "unarmed" excuse work, again?

[wellst0nev0ter]

58. Sounds Like Another Weak Excuse To Carry A Gun

I swear I could set my watch to you people.

[PavePusher]

64. Sorry, I'm not required to subject myself to a fist fight to satisfy your sense of proportionality.

If I have to defend myself from injury or death, I will use the most efficient, overpowering and least-risk-to-myself means at my disposal.

There is no moral or legal requirement to do otherwise.

[GreenStormCloud]

55. In 5% of U.S. murders the weapons used are hands and feet.

Self-defense law recognizes a disparity of force. An 89 lbs woman (My wife's weight at age 21. She is a tiny woman.) when threatened by a football linebacker is at an extreme disadvantage. She can legally draw and fire, if the other conditions are met. But she would have a very hard time convincing a judge and jury it was self-defense if the linebacker was shot in the back.

[wellst0nev0ter]

59. Those Statistics Aren't Really Convincing

Think about your chances of being killed. Then think about your chances of being killed with bare hands. Does that really justify having everyone carry a gun?

[friendly_iconoclast]

60. If you can show me somone that wants everyone to carry a gun, I'll argue with them myself

Unfortunately, the only people that perpetrate that meme are prohibitionists who like to recycle it in the mistaken notion

that we've not seen it many times before.

[wellst0nev0ter]

66. I Heard Of Some Towns That Actually Made It A Law

for everybody (or every household I forget which) to have a gun, so there are real life examples out there. Some might say that's the outcome gun right activists are going for.

[GreenStormCloud]

72. That was an unenforced protest law.

Kennesaw, GA, enacted that law shortly after Morton Grove, IL passed a law outlawing the ownership of handguns in the city. The law required each household to have at least one gun, unless they had a moral objection to gun ownership. The law did not require anybody to carry a gun outside of the home. The post you responded to was talking about carrying a gun, not just ownership. The law was never intended to actually be enforced and never has been. It was their way of making a statement.

[friendly_iconoclast]

81. In all honesty, I thought that law was stupid, at best.

If the people of Kennesaw wanted to give the finger to Morton Grove, they should have enacted a local version of the Second

Amendment.

[friendly_iconoclast]

79. "Some might say". And who are the 'some'?

The use of weasel words is telling. If you believe this is so, just come out and say it- and kindly offer up some evidence

when you do.

[wellst0nev0ter]

85. I'd Say That "Joke" Ordinance Is All The Evidence I Need n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

62. I don't have to justify the exercise of a civil right.

I am not required to submit to a beating so that you can feel good politically. Take a punch at me and I get to shoot.

[wellst0nev0ter]

68. Funny, You Take A Punch At Me, You Get A Punch Back

Yes, that idea doesn't apply to those that can't defend themselves, but you can't honestly say a gun is the only way to defend yourself against an unarmed attack.

Or do you actually believe that?

[oneshooter]

70. I for one have no desire to punch you, or anybody else.

That would be the start of a fight, and I refuse to do that. However if you initiate violence against me I am allowed, by law, to defend myself. I will use whatever I need to do that, ranging from knobkerry to firearm. As long as you present a threat to me. And the law will be on my side, whether you are injured and retreat, or dead.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[wellst0nev0ter]

75. Well, To Be Fair That's Texas Law

And as we already discussed, it's apparently legal in Texas for private citizens to execute any burglars they catch.

[GreenStormCloud]

73. I refuse to hit you or to provoke you. You hit me, I shoot. N/T

[GreenStormCloud]

71. I carry. You hit me unprovoked and I get to defend myself with gunfire.

The exception would be if you are so weak that the blow is ineffectual. I am not required to gamble with my life on when you will stop beating me. Will it be just some bruises, or serious injury, or death?

[wellst0nev0ter]

76. Well, It's Nice To Know That Any Unarmed Attack On You

Will result in a death sentence, along with burglary and I'm sure many other non-capital offenses.

[GreenStormCloud]

78. Yes. We have Castle Doctrine Law here.

Illegally break into my home while I am in it and I will shoot withut warning. Then call 911 for body removal.

[wellst0nev0ter]

83. You Know, There Is A Reason Why It's Called The "Castle Doctrine"

Because people used to get executed for things such as property crimes back during the time people live in castles. I'm not saying you support going back to those times, but I do wonder if moderates like you support chopping off the hands of thieves.

[friendly_iconoclast]

80. Your concern for the welfare of those who commit violent assault is noted.

I take the assaultee is supposed to take comfort in the notion that "only" 5% or so of murders are committed by means of hands

and/or feet alone.


I contend there is no moral requirement for assault victims to offer a level playing field to perpetrators of violent crime.

[wellst0nev0ter]

82. Oh Noes! I Sides With The Criminulz!

Sorry to tell you but that horseshit accusation is not going to work with me. So if "only" 5% of the murders are committed by hand justifies concealed-carry laws and self-defense killings, does that mean that the 5% (pulling numbers out of my ass here) of gun deaths are committed by registered gun owners justify outright gun bans?

Also noted: bringing a gun to a fistfight "levels the playing field." Gotta admire that logic.

[oneshooter]

86. " bringing a gun to a fistfight "levels the playing field."

If you are involved in a "fair fight" then you are underarmed.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[friendly_iconoclast]

87. I didn't say "fistfight", *you* did. Violent assault by any means can be deadly.

And that strawman argument couldn't be more obvious:

So if "only" 5% of the murders are committed by hand justifies concealed-carry laws and self-defense killings, does that mean that the 5% (pulling numbers out of my ass here) of gun deaths are committed by registered gun owners justify outright gun bans?

I daresay it is not the least bit incumbent upon the victim of a violent assault to assume that the person assaulting them

won't harm them, by whatever means the perp may choose to use.


And you're right- you are pulling numbers out of your ass. Less than 1% percent of CCW permit holders get convicted

of any disqualifying crime, much less murder. You might want to research the concept of 'justifiable homicide'

while you're at it, as you seem to be unclear about the concept...

[GreenStormCloud]

90. That number really did come from the end of your digestive tract.

In 2009 in Texas there were 406 convictions for murder. Of those only one was a CHL holder. That is far less than 5%. It is 1/4 of one percent. For that matter out of every 100,000 CHL holders only 25 were convicted of any type of crime. That is 1/40 of one percent.

We don't have registered gun owners. Registration of firearms is not required. To buy a gun here you go in gun store, pick out gun, fill out paperwork, submit to NICS check, (Unless you have a CHL, then the NICS check is waived.) pay for gun, take gun with you as you leave the store.

I am under no obligation to offer an attacker a "fair" fight. I will be fighting for my life or to prevent serious bodily harm and I will take every advantage I can get.

[GreenStormCloud]

92. Yes, you are on the side of the criminals.

In your posts you are reducing the severity of the criminal's crime. Violent assault to you is "getting in a fistfight".

And you want victims to be unarmed so they can't defend themselves. Make things safer for thugs.

[GreenStormCloud]

24. CCW permit holders do NOT increase violence.

Anti-gun people have been crying "blood in the streets" and "Wild West" for decades every time a state goes shall-issue or gun carry is allowed in a place where it wasn't before. And the antis predictions don't happen. The sky doesn't fall. But that doesn't stop the antis from making the same claims the next time the debate comes up. When will your side quite beating that dead horse?

You can check it out. TX & FL keep statistic and publish them. CCW holders are not a danger to anybody except those who would attack a liscense holder. CCW has the effect of reducing violent crime. Criminals don't like to attack armed victims. Doing that is real bad for a criminal's health.

[derby378]

25. This is one of the reasons I support CHLs at Texas colleges

I thought long and hard about the issue of guns on campus, but in the end I decided to side with the freedom and dignity of the individual. Rape has a nasty habit of stripping a college student of both.

[LAGC]

69. STUPID REPUBLICANS TRYING TO FORCE GUNS ON CAMPUS!

law proposed by Sen. John Lee, D-North Las Vegas.

Oh, wait a minute...

[wellst0nev0ter]

74. Oh, You Don't Say?

A Democrat proposed this law? Well by George, I'll have to get behind it then, because no liberal anywhere in Soviet America has ever disagreed with someone with a "D" beside a name!

Do I really need a :sarcasm: tag?