The biggest outcry has been at the Austin campus of the University of Texas...

Um, yeah. Austin is a Marxist sinkhole. Has been for decades. Here, dip a toe:

http://poorrichardsnews.com/progressives-in-austin-shocked-they-have-to-pay/

Yeah, every red state has an Austin. That's OK; it just makes it easier for the rest of us to keep an eye on them.

In connection to this, I've also seen reports where the school has concocted all sorts of novel and bizarre legal theories wherein it does not have to comply with the law. One was that our old friend, Title IX, bans guns from campus because guns somehow discriminate against women and minorities. I didn't know that guns have electronic circuits in them that detect the sex and ethnicity of the person that they are pointed out, but apparently they do.

From Lastango's linked article: "I have voted for every park, every library, all the school improvements, for light rail, for anything that will make this city better. But now I can’t afford to live here anymore."

That is the problem with relegating public projects to plebiscites. Voters vote up or down on a specific project; they don't weigh a collection of spending bills as a whole and determine budget priorities. After the voters have spoken, the approved project becomes a budget item the legislature must fund, but cannot adjust. I read an estimate once that said the California legislature has actual control over only 15% of the state's budget, the rest being mandated spending due to plebiscite votes.

"pointed *at*"... jeez, I got up too early.

"But shortly after his interview, the 49-year-old professor at the University of Virginia took himself out of the running.

The reason: He was unwilling to step into the middle of an increasingly contentious debate over guns on campus."

Good. One less nutbag spreading his specific brand of crazy in the classroom.

As I recall, a shooting took place at UT-A in 1966.

Also, that faculty, staff and students unlimbered their rifles and returned fire on the demented soul in the bell tower, keeping him pinned down.

Hell they don't even want to discuss it.

http://www.armedcampuses.org/texas/

"The new Texas law will permit individuals who have obtained a concealed handgun license (CHL) to carry their loaded, concealed weapon in college and university buildings. Each college and university may determine certain sensitive areas and buildings* where concealed weapons will continue to be prohibited. Each college and university must publically display campus policies on the official school website, as well as widely publicizing it among correspondence with the institution’s faculty, staff, and students. Previous laws permitting the concealed carry with a license on open campus grounds and in locked vehicles in parking lots will remain unchanged (see note 2 below).
*The sensitive areas will first be determined by the institution and will include representatives from the student body, faculty, and staff. Once the sensitive areas are approved by this committee, they will be sent to the Board of Regents for a 2/3 vote for approval."

One of the dumbest things about "campus gun bans" is that off-duty cops and ROTC cadets are often NOT allowed to bring their guns onto campus.

It seems to me this law is trying to address that stupidity.

The professors quitting over it . . . well, good riddance; don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Obey the law or get out of the classroom; it's good to see them comply with that concept.

As for the excuse that a poorly graded student might "pop" someone off? OMG! That is so laughable and it shows the mindset of the "ban guns ninnies" because that is what they would do with their poor impulse control.

UT Austin was having trouble recruiting and maintaining good professors and coaches long before campus carry was passed, and for reasons that have nothing to do with guns and much to do with politics, the school's governing board, and admissions scandals.

I find the conclusion from the anti-gun crowd that *because* someone is carrying a gun, they're going to shoot someone, preposterous. Licensed concealed-carriers are carrying to protect themselves, not harm others.

Regarding Lastango's link: I recall reading that news story some time ago, and forwarding it to people. Ah, the irony. When I still lived in a nice little central Austin neighborhood, I voted against every single bond proposal and tax increase that came up. ("Affordable housing?" Psh. Affordable housing for who? How much will this cost ME?) In 2004 our real estate taxes (for all entities) were around $4500. By the time we sold the house in 2012 they were at almost $8000. I still work downtown, and my husband works all over the city, but we've moved out of Austin and even out of Travis County. I do my best to keep my tax money out of this city's coffers. Idiots. Raising taxes and writing up new building regulations that make it harder to build new housing while complaining about the how un-affordable housing is here. Ugh. It's like the white kids living on the east side complaining about gentrification. Like no one has a mirror.

Maybe Daniel Hamermesh is a shitty introductory economics professor. Maybe he deserves to be afraid.

I think all the melty snowflakes on our campuses are worried about things that aren't real because they know in their heart of hearts that the world is a hazardous, punishing and unpleasant place... But because their seniors and authorities have coddled them in such comfy velvet, they don't know how to look past the shiny fabric to see what they're supposed to be afraid of.

They know it's supposed to be bad, though. They keep hearing about it on Twitter. Unpleasantness!

Probably hard work or something. But they haven't seen in yet.

I've been in half a dozen situations where I was happy to have my concealed weapon with me. I have also been in many where I was frustrated and very angry. If my life or the life of others was threatened I would defend myself. But I have yet to lose control and shoot someone simply because I got angry or frustrated. What kind of nuts are these teachers that they think no one can control themselves. The concealed gun owners pass so may background checks you can count on them to be the pillars of society. It's the ones that can't legally carry guns that you need to worry about.

Even if there was some magical line that prevented guns from entering the school, you don't have to actually be on school property to engage in a school shooting. Look at Brenda Ann "I don't like Mondays" Spencer.

On the other hand, trusting teachers and students to carry guns carries its own risks. Are all these gun-toters on campus crack shots and do they all have superb judgment?

For instance, in a hostage situation, do you trust these trigger-happy "good guys" to be able to hit their target with harming the hostage? Do they all have the sense not to try something so dangerous unless they absolutely have to? And by what standard are we to judge whether they should "absolutely have to"?

"And by what standard are we to judge whether they should "absolutely have to"?"

By the same standards we use off campus. Just because you are at a university doesn't make anything different. If it was legal to shoot someone down the street those rules shouldn't be changed just because you are standing on university property.

Also are there that many hostage situations on campuses? Convenience stores or banks seem like a much likelier setting for that kind of issue.

Patrick,
Since police are not obligated to come inside and deal w/the criminal it might end better w/someone on the inside (other than the criminal) having a gun.

You know it doesn't end until
1) the criminal decides it's in his interest to end (and since we all know how logical these guys are ...),

2) he runs out of bullets,

3) he gets tired of killing after an hour or so (Norway?), OR

4) someone w/a gun shows up.

" It's the ones that can't legally carry guns that you need to worry about."

Like Martha Stewart, for example.

Not only a convicted felon but an ex-convict.

And that's why the system works, people!

"Each college and university may determine certain sensitive areas and buildings* where concealed weapons will continue to be prohibited. Each college and university must publically display campus policies on the official school website, as well as widely publicizing it among correspondence with the institution’s faculty, staff, and students."

"Dear Murderous Loser:
Texas State Universities continuously strive to be inclusive - to promote the achievements of all who grace our campus. Inside the buildings listed below, you will find the weakest among us, the créme dé la créme of those who demand "safe spaces". Unarmed, yea, incapable of self-defense, you will find them here for your necessary work.
(We won't miss them anyway - they wouldn't do anything because they were continually upset.)
You will find that the numerous My Little Pony™ and Hello Kitty™ plush toys present will blot most incidental stains quite nicely.
Best wishes,
Your Diversity Awareness and Safe Space Coordinator,
"Hop" LePhobe"

There were plenty of guns on campus when I was there in the last 90's/early 00's. There has always been a significant number of people who refuse to beg the permission of others, for the right to defend themselves. A significant number of those people left Europe for America in our early years, and a significant number of those have left the coasts since, and moved to Texas.

Austin is ruined, for all intents and purposes. It used to be a fun wacky hippie place. Now it's just SJW and progressives. The weird is gone, just the stupid is left. It's a shame. And it's why we left it for more conservative towns to the north of it.

"we left it for more conservative towns to the north of it."

Now who can argue with that?

"In response to the new state law being passed, hundreds of students at the University of Texas in Austin openly carried items which are still not allowed in classes – dildos."

As reported from that bastion of conservatism, Houston, and their local Communist Party.

I applaud the Houston Communist Party for showing just how bed wettingly stupid many university professors really are. As MomOf4 noted the guns are already there. They've been there for decades. If a student wanted to shoot a professor they always had that option. The only change is students can now use their weapons in a responsible manner without dire legal consequences.

"For instance, in a hostage situation, do you trust these trigger-happy "good guys" to be able to hit their target with harming the hostage? Do they all have the sense not to try something so dangerous unless they absolutely have to? And by what standard are we to judge whether they should "absolutely have to"?"

You sure have a lot of questions for your own neighbors.

Do you ask this of your police department? Do you even know how they train their officers?

Where do you get off calling CCW holders "trigger-happy"?

Do you recognize that you, Patrick, have absolutely no right to be protected from crime by a police officer standing right there with you?

Just wondering. This reads like you need your own "safe space".

Radwaste: Do you ask this of your police department? Do you even know how they train their officers?

Well, at least police officers are trained, to say nothing of the physical and mental competence they must prove before becoming a cop. That's more than what you need to get a concealed-carry permit. At least in Florida, all you need is to demonstrate "competency" with a firearm (apparently the ability to point and squeeze a trigger), plus a few legal requirements, and beyond that, you're good to go.

I don't really know what goes into a police officer's training. I could easily find out if I cared to, but I don't feel the need. I let their record speak for itself. And despite what movements like Black Lives Matter (with their insistence on pointing their accusing fingers at the police and whites instead of at their own community) would have us believe, the police do a damned good job.

And that's the very point. As a private citizen, you do not need training of any kind to be allowed to carry a gun.

Don't like the fact that I have a few concerns about people being to walk around carrying deadly weapons which they can employ at their own discretion? The fields are sprawling with all the fucks I give. Especially coming from you. You are easily the lowest IQ on this blog. I wouldn't trust you to operate a tricycle, much less a firearm.

I don't really know what goes into a police officer's training. I could easily find out if I cared to, but I don't feel the need. I let their record speak for itself."

Cops shoot more innocent bystanders than private citizens do. Juggle these numbers any way you want, they're not going the other way.

You won't look things up, and you're superior?

Nope. You've outed yourself again, as one who speaks from emotion rather than reason - and one who apparently assumes his neighbors are "trigger-happy" and uncaring about having to shoot a person.

You won't look this up either: go back through this blog and count the times you see some variation of "Radwaste is right". You'll come up short by comparison.

I guess my questions should have had a (hmm... irony?) trigger warning.

Okay, your study is retarded, but from you, I expect no less.

Well, Rad, the private citizen who carries his gun around simply goes about his business. It's not his job to respond to it. And hopefully, unless you're dealing with some kind of vigilante, they don't go around looking for it, either.

The police, by contrast, are paid to look for trouble. And when trouble comes up, they have a system in place that notifies them, and obligates them to respond to it.

Gee, you think the chances of the police needing to use a gun is a hell of a lot higher than the ordinary citizen? Hmmm...tough one, huh? (It would be for you, I'm sure.)

Thank you for proving my point, once again: you're an idiot. That's my only point. Your critical thinking skills are non-existent. A child would have deduced that the chances of a policeman needing to use a gun are much higher than that of the average citizen. But not ol' Rad. He just waltzed right up to that website (which is a blog, by the way. And the University of Chicago study it references? Does link us to the study. It links us to a book we can buy on Amazon from third-party sellers that talks about the study.

There's really no way to check their numbers, unless you buy the book, assuming the author correctly interprets the numbers. Gee, your blog source wouldn't be biased, by any chance, would it?

So, thank you once again. You've proven that there's an advantage to having a consummate lack of critical thinking skills. You can find conclusive evidence where a person of even ordinary intelligence would realize you need more data.

Dunce. You ought to be embarrassed.

I like the part where we protect the cows with our Peacemakers.

pew pew pewpewpewpewpew!

The police, by contrast, are paid to look for trouble. And when trouble comes up, they have a system in place that notifies them, and obligates them to respond to it.

Really? Then why do they argue in court they have no duty to protect citizens from crimes in progress?

Warren v. District of Columbia
DeShaney v. Winnebago County
Castle Rock v. Gonzales

Ironically while cops can tell you to fuck off, literally as you are being stabbed to death in front of them, its illegal for you as a privates citizen to refuse aid to a police officer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusing_to_assist_a_police_officer

Really? Then why do they argue in court they have no duty to protect citizens from crimes in progress?

Hello, lujlp. I'm not a lawyer, but I would bet that it's for liability issues. If they had the "duty" to protect citizens from crimes in progress, they could be sued every time they tried but failed to do so.

By the way, I've never heard of a cop knowingly sitting there and doing nothing while someone is a victim of a crime and refusing to even try to aid you. At least not without consequences.

For instance, the sucker-puncher at the Trump rally. The deputies who were escorting him out did absolutely nothing to help the victim, nor did they arrest the assailant. Sheriff Earl "Moose" Butler placed them all on a year's probation and some received demotions, precisely because they did nothing to aid the victim as he was being assaulted and failed to arrest his attacker.

You might assert that the cop has no legal obligation to help you, but you've shown no evidence that police failing to aid victims of a crime in progress is some epidemic problem. Both you and Radwaste have pointed out that the cops have no legal obligation to protect you from a crime in progress.

obligates them to respond to it.

have no legal obligation to protect you from a crime in progress.

Pick one

Sorry, lujlp. No inconsistency present. When they receive a call on their radios about a disturbance of some kind they are obligated to respond to it. It is a command from a superior officer. They can either do as they're told by their superior, or they can deal with the penalties, such as demotion or even dismissal.

On the other hand, the law, as you yourself have pointed out, does not obligate them to protect a civilian from a crime in progress.

One obligation comes from a superior officer. The other comes (or doesn't come) from the law.

"Dunce. You ought to be embarrassed."

Hey, I'm not the guy who doesn't bother to look things up before posting and says so. Now you think that's the only thing that can be found.

Have you looked up anything else? No. You had to have luj cite Supreme Court cases for you. Your prejudice is more important than anything except petty hate.

And you're still short on "Patrick is right" cites. That will persist as long as I post, and you have a loooong way to go to catch up.

Meanwhile, for people who think: count the references rebutting my point.

That is the most pathetic response I've ever seen.

You got caught posting a blog as a source. And instead of a link to the actual University of Chicago study it references, it links us to a book for sale on Amazon that talks about the study.

So, ultimately, your source proves nothing about anything. Leave it to you to think you actually scored a point.

Then you also demonstrate the lack of critical thinking skills that a normal eight-year-old possesses because you can't even consider, when arriving at your brilliant (and still unsupported) conclusion that cops kill more innocent bystanders than civilians do, how much an average person who carries a gun might be called upon to consider using it versus the number of times a policeman would.

As I said, dunce, you utterly humiliated yourself. You ought to be embarrassed.

Now you seriously want us to go back through this blog and count the number of "Rad is rights" vs. the number of "Patrick is rights"? You grow more childish every day.