UT campus breaking news: ultimate irony [updated]

As the situation of the gunman (or gunmen) on the UT campus is unfolding right now, it’s ironic that already scheduled tonight on the UT campus, at the law school, is John Lott, speaking in favor of the right to carry concealed weapons on college campuses.

Discuss among yourselves.

Update: the link is now dead. Click on the image to see the screen capture of the event notice.

Comments

comments

26 Responses to UT campus breaking news: ultimate irony [updated]

  1. Shanerrific September 28, 2010 at 2:16 pm #

    Wouldn’t this be a perfect reason TO carry concealed weapons?

  2. Jason September 28, 2010 at 2:19 pm #

    Yeah just what we need, a bunch of vigilantes firing weapons. MORE guns is never the answer. I just don’t understand that logic.

  3. Anonymous September 28, 2010 at 2:26 pm #

    Do you not understand? Some of us our licensed to carry concealed outside of school, so what would change? There’s never any crimes with the people that are licensed. We need to be able to carry concealed at school so we can protect ourselves from the real criminal. We’re licensed upstanding citizens, not criminals.

  4. Anonymous September 28, 2010 at 2:27 pm #

    *are

  5. Anonymous September 28, 2010 at 3:09 pm #

    Everyone’s for that until the police shoot a kid with a gun that was ‘trying to shoot the shooter.’

  6. Anonymous September 28, 2010 at 3:28 pm #

    Jason: If you wish to be a victim, feel free. Maybe you’ll at least take a bullet that was meant for someone who values their own life.

    Only tyrants disarm honest men.

  7. Anonymous September 28, 2010 at 3:29 pm #

    English Police:This wasn’t ironic. It was a coincidence.

    It would have been ironic if the speaker stopped in the middle of his speech and shot someone. Or was shot.

  8. Dimensio September 28, 2010 at 3:29 pm #

    I am certain that individuals opposing lawful carrying of firearms on college campuses can validate their opposition through reference to incidents in states where such action is permitted. I am therefore curious as to why no such validation is ever provided.

  9. Anonymous September 28, 2010 at 3:31 pm #

    If you’ve taken a concealed handgun license class or been through any law enforcement training, you know all of this is taught. Not only that, it’s not like we go around chasing after people. We’re not trained to do that. Police know how to tell the difference between the good and bad. We also are taught how to act in certain situations, such as this. We’re not vigilantes. We just want to be able to protect ourselves on campus, just as we can anywhere else outside of campus, with the exception of bars and places marked with the penal code 30.06 sign.

  10. Anonymous September 28, 2010 at 3:37 pm #

    at least if someone had been carrying , and inside the library at the time of the shooting, they could have shot the shooter before he shot himself. Also @ the spokesperson for UT: please have the police (if they didn’t already) specify whether or not it was a semi-auto or a full-auto automatic weapon. damn liberals.

  11. FUBAR September 28, 2010 at 3:41 pm #

    Anonymous @ 10:37 – please cut the name-calling and stick to the issue. Thanks in advance.

  12. Anonymous September 28, 2010 at 3:42 pm #

    The reports say it was an AK-47. Also this situation wouldn’t have been better if there was someone concealed carrying. The suspect fired out of a window on the 6th floor, that’s why he missed 6 times. If someone had tried to engage him inside the library it’s pretty likely he would’ve at least injured that person and turned his fire inside the library.

    The problem is that there are so many variables you can’t just say ‘concealed carry reduces crime’, or the complement, it doesn’t correlate positively or negatively across all 50 states because there are so many things to take into account.

    http://www.sj-r.com/carousel/x1526463189/Concealed-carry-laws-Experts-debate-impact

  13. Anonymous September 28, 2010 at 3:44 pm #

    Please do not commit the intellectual dishonesty of equivocating the notion that people should be able to carry licensed, semi-automatic hand guns for self-defense with a crazed gunman carrying an ILLEGAL AK-47.

    In fact, a distribution of legal handguns might allow these defenseless, innocent people at school to protect themselves against these murderous crazies until the police arrive.

    Innocent people are the only ones who are restricted from gun control laws. These insane murderers will always disobey the law because that is there intention, therefore they will never be checked by making guns illegal.

  14. Lee September 28, 2010 at 3:44 pm #

    Quoting anonymous: “Police know how to tell the difference between the good and bad.”

    Really? Because all I ever police say is that they don’t want a situation like this, where everybody has a gun. The good guys don’t wear signs around their necks saying “good guy, don’t shoot.”

  15. Anonymous September 28, 2010 at 3:51 pm #

    This makes my point perfectly. An advocate for concealed carry stopping a robbery by shooting a man asking for people’s wallets. Then he shot him 2 more times in the back as the guy ran away. That’s needless; that’s murder, Castle doctrine or otherwise.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life/

  16. Anonymous September 28, 2010 at 3:54 pm #

    @Anon 10:44_1

    I made no such equivocation, don’t try and straw man me.

  17. Anonymous September 28, 2010 at 4:04 pm #

    Also I’ve never heard a cohesive argument by gun advocates against just carrying this:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6079694/New-Taser-gun-that-can-fire-up-to-100-feet-being-considered-for-use-in-UK.html

    Trained or not, you shouldn’t be trying to take down a gunman from >100 feet anyway.

  18. Anonymous September 28, 2010 at 4:41 pm #

    @FUBAR: noted. I will no longer call people liberals. @10:44 – it was most likely a semi-automatic AK-47, which is a weapon that is legal to own. @10:51- The man was an attorney, he clearly understood that if you shoot someone in self-defense, and the person you shot is injured, then said person can then take you to court and press charges. When you shoot in self-defense, you shoot to kill; whether it is through the use of strategically fired shots (neck, torso) or just by emptying your clip. @11:04 i wouldn’t want to be armed with a glorified cattle prod if i were to be up against someone threatening me with a firearm. Back on topic, I am glad nobody was killed or injured. (other than the shooter, whom I feel very sad for)

  19. Brent September 28, 2010 at 5:51 pm #

    To clear up some confusion…

    Semi-automatic AK-47s are legal to purchase and own and are available most anywhere in the United States. The operate no differently than any other rifle. They fire one shot at a time. Just because it is an assault rifle does not mean it is fully automatic.

    It is not legal to carry a firearm into most schools in the United States, with or without a license. The states that do allow concealed carry on campus have never had a single issue.

    Criminals do not care about laws. You can have the most strict gun laws in the world and you will always have crime. Look at Europe and Australia. Extremely strict gun laws, and an insane crime rate. I can’t say it enough… criminals do not care about the laws. They have intentions on carrying out the crime they are committing, and no sign or law makes a difference to them.

    Students that are 21 and older, and are licensed to carry a concealed handgun anywhere else (besides a bar or place with the 30.06 sign) should be allowed to carry on campus for self defense purposes. It’s not like the students will be walking around with six shooters in holsters on their hip. These are concealed weapons. Students that are licensed already carry everywhere else, and no one knows about it, because the handguns are concealed. The only thing the campus gun laws accomplish is disarming the licensed, innocent, law-abiding students that attend school and carry everywhere else outside of school.

    The answer isn’t more gun laws or “gun control”. There are already laws in place. Criminals will never abide by the laws, which is why they are called criminals.

  20. FUBAR September 28, 2010 at 6:21 pm #

    the bottom line is, they’ll get my blog when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.

  21. poMONKey September 28, 2010 at 11:11 pm #

    Melt the guns …

    you can squawk all day about the protection guns offer and that you have a right to carry and blah blah blah … I dont care … fucking melt them ALL.

  22. FUBAR September 28, 2010 at 11:14 pm #

    wow, that’s really gonna put a damper on that dove hunt. Drats.

  23. Mule Breath September 29, 2010 at 4:21 am #

    @Anonymous (one or the other of you): I’m a damn liberal with a CCL and I advocate for CC on campus. Stereotype at your own peril.

    @Brent: The most logical response on the topic so far.

    @poMONKey: Nonsensical. I don’t like tomatoes, so we should ban tomatoes?

    The truth is that CCL holders are proven by statistics to NOT cause the trouble anti-gun speculation predicts. Statistics also show that criminals do not give a jolly damn about gun laws. Every gun law ever written has failed to control the real problem… criminals. Prohibitions are, by definition, unconstitutional.

    To FUBAR: You should change comment settings so that all commenters are required to have some unique user name. All these anonymouses are giving me gas.

  24. FUBAR September 29, 2010 at 12:19 pm #

    Mule Breath – I rather like seeing which opinions people are reluctant to stand behind. It’s very telling.

  25. Mule Breath September 30, 2010 at 3:40 am #

    Perhaps so, FUBAR, but there are so many it makes my head spin. I feel a Reagan MacNeil moment coming on.

  26. Anonymous January 4, 2011 at 7:52 pm #

    Carrying is one thing; students reloading in their dorms is another. As my CCL instructor said, there are two types of people in the world: those who have had a negligent discharge and those who are going to. The state’s 12-hour, rudimentary program of CCL training is not adequate to even begin to contemplate whether or not we allow 21-year-olds to possess and carry firearms in some of the most densely populated living and working places in our state. Think about finding a safe direction to point a firearm while handling it in a college dorm and imagine your daughter in the next room; then get back to me.

Leave a Reply