TexasCHLforum.com

It seems disinformation is a powerful tool being used against Campus Carry.

A good friend of mine is a residential life director at a university here in Austin. She knows I carry and so the other day she brought up campus carry. She was saying she was very concerned by it and that her university is very concerned. She went on to say that even the chief of police for the campus was worried. They are all trying to figure out how to control the licensed possession of a firearm on campus. They are all worried about guns in the dorms.

This blew me away. The very first comment I made was that it wouldn't really be that big of a deal as only those students over 21 could carry. This caught her completely by surprise. It seemed that nobody, including the chief of police for the campus had mentioned that the only people who could have a CHL were students over 21. This means the chances of legal carry in the dorms drops to near zero. Suddenly the big concern is gone. From there I went on to explain just what it takes to get a CHL and explained that while campus carry could benefit some students it stands to really help staff and the public, 'adults', who either work on campus or regularly visit campus for research/meetings/etc.

What has surprised me from all this is that folks up the food chain (and my friend is pretty high up the residential life portion) either don't know or are ignoring the CHL portion of campus carry. I'm worried it might be ignorance. I'm fearful that it is purposeful from folks up above.

I think it's both, purposeful on some parts and just blatant ignorance on others.

Kudos on telling your friend the facts. Now, take her shooting.

After that, maybe you could suggest speaking to a few of the other residence life folks about this issue, and assuage their fears.

Just remember, ultimately, this is about campus safety. Focusing on guns is like focusing on what kind of hammer you are using while building a house.

Anti's (and the uninformed) are conditioned to think and react with emotion only. They have no logic or facts. i.e. "GUNS??? ON CAMPUS????? *gasp* THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"

The idiocy goes all the way up until it becomes a planned agenda. Reminds me of the time when Carolyn McCarthy was asked why she wanted to ban barrel shrouds (part of the gun ban) and she didn't even know a barrel shroud was. Whether she's part of the idiocy or agenda, I'm not sure... but I suspect both.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

Not providing all of the information is as powerful or maybe more powerful at times than dis or mis-information. By not giving them 'the whole picture' the anti's can let the unknowing come up with their own assumptions for painting a negative view. They will only tell the person the parts that work in their favor, but purposely leave out the parts that will potentially turn them the other direction. If they provide them with all of the facts, then they may see it is not a big issue (as in this case) and then be in favor of it, thus squelching the anti's propaganda. And, they just MIGHT spread the truth to others and that would be anti-anti.

Fortunately she said she would go forth with the knowledge and spread it.

AustinMRH wrote:Fortunately she said she would go forth with the knowledge and spread it.

Good for her. Just what SHOULD be done! Thanks for spreading the REAL truth.

Keith B wrote:Not providing all of the information is as powerful or maybe more powerful at times than dis or mis-information. By not giving them 'the whole picture' the anti's can let the unknowing come up with their own assumptions for painting a negative view. They will only tell the person the parts that work in their favor, but purposely leave out the parts that will potentially turn them the other direction. If they provide them with all of the facts, then they may see it is not a big issue (as in this case) and then be in favor of it, thus squelching the anti's propaganda. And, they just MIGHT spread the truth to others and that would be anti-anti.

Speaking of propaganda, does the name Joseph Goebbels, Ph. D. ring any bells?

Oldgringo wrote:

Keith B wrote:Not providing all of the information is as powerful or maybe more powerful at times than dis or mis-information. By not giving them 'the whole picture' the anti's can let the unknowing come up with their own assumptions for painting a negative view. They will only tell the person the parts that work in their favor, but purposely leave out the parts that will potentially turn them the other direction. If they provide them with all of the facts, then they may see it is not a big issue (as in this case) and then be in favor of it, thus squelching the anti's propaganda. And, they just MIGHT spread the truth to others and that would be anti-anti.

Speaking of propaganda, does the name Joseph Goebbels, Ph. D. ring any bells?

Ja war er der Reich-Minister von Propaganda

John 8:32

Yes, but .... this bill issues free guns to children right?
I heard they were "giving guns" to kids and "allowing MORE guns on campus"
How can the day care on campus afford to buy 1911s to issue to all the kids with the budgets being cut?

apostate wrote:John 8:32

RPB wrote:Yes, but .... this bill issues free guns to children right?
I heard they were "giving guns" to kids and "allowing MORE guns on campus"

Of course! The idea is for EVERYONE to be armed, then the entire class can gather in a circle around the shooter, close their eyes, and fire toward the center. That way they're sure to hit him, right?

If you follow the comments against campus carry, you will quickly pick up on a common phrase, "putting guns in the hands of students". The impression made, whether deliberate or not, is that all students will have a gun, including irresponsible ones who drink heavily, have anger problems or suffer from emotional or psychological problems. No mention is made of the qualifications for a CHL except to point out that they are not that stringent and they don't guarantee that a licensee will not commit a handgun crime. I believe these are commonly called talking points, and they are repeated by everyone who advocates against the bill.

baldeagle wrote:If you follow the comments against campus carry, you will quickly pick up on a common phrase, "putting guns in the hands of students". The impression made, whether deliberate or not, is that all students will have a gun, including irresponsible ones who drink heavily, have anger problems or suffer from emotional or psychological problems. No mention is made of the qualifications for a CHL except to point out that they are not that stringent and they don't guarantee that a licensee will not commit a handgun crime. I believe these are commonly called talking points, and they are repeated by everyone who advocates against the bill.

Wait a minute...you mean they are NOT giving my kids guns first semester if this passes? I was planning on this in my budget, now I'll have to pay for them



RPB beat me to it. The way they paint this is as if the state will issue guns to all the students when this passes. Playing on peoples emotions are the only tactics these anti's seem to have. It's pretty sad.

CJD wrote:

RPB wrote:Yes, but .... this bill issues free guns to children right?
I heard they were "giving guns" to kids and "allowing MORE guns on campus"

Of course! The idea is for EVERYONE to be armed, then the entire class can gather in a circle around the shooter, close their eyes, and fire toward the center. That way they're sure to hit him, right?

I've heard this called an Aggie Firing Squad...

(putting on my Nomex suit...)

Keith B wrote:Not providing all of the information is as powerful or maybe more powerful at times than dis or mis-information. By not giving them 'the whole picture' the anti's can let the unknowing come up with their own assumptions for painting a negative view. They will only tell the person the parts that work in their favor, but purposely leave out the parts that will potentially turn them the other direction. If they provide them with all of the facts, then they may see it is not a big issue (as in this case) and then be in favor of it, thus squelching the anti's propaganda. And, they just MIGHT spread the truth to others and that would be anti-anti.

Exactly. This is a deliberate strategy and not an accident or an oversight.