With the campus carry bills having passed to the House, it’s a matter of time before the future of CHL at UH is determined. | Raymond Tan/The Cougar
With less than 10 weeks remaining in the regular session for the 84th Texas Legislature, college administrators and students are keeping a close watch on Senate Bill 11 and House Bill 937. Better known as the campus carry bills, they would allow individuals over 21 with concealed handgun licenses to lawfully carry concealed handguns into college buildings and classrooms.
Proponents of the bill suggest that the mandate is a deterrent against crime, while opponents argue that the law will perpetuate an unsafe environment on campuses. Last week, the Senate gave final approval on SB 11, sending it to the House for a committee vote.
“Gun-free zones create an area where only law-abiding citizens are without weapons,” said supply chain management senior Antoine Hythier, president of the UH chapter of the Students for Concealed Carry.
“Criminals, by their very nature, ignore these laws and prey upon the defenseless. Any quick search about campus security will show the vast number of armed crimes.”
According to UH’s annual crime report, 14 aggravated assaults, 33 robberies and 200 burglaries took place between 2011 and 2013. With the mandate, Hythier and other supporters argue that the bills will allow CHL holders to protect themselves in the same manner as if they were anywhere else.
For UHPD Chief Ceaser Moore, the bills offer nothing more than increased risk to his officers and the campus community.
“I’m against it. I know the administration is against it,” Moore said. “There’s a thing called smart-people syndrome, and when you’re in the room and you’re talking about something, and you come up with a plan, it really sounds like a good plan, but in the world where people actually exist, it’s just not a good idea.”
Moore said the logistics of having guns on campus will be problematic, with too many fundamental issues.
“If there’s an active shooter on campus and you go to help the police, the police don’t know who you are,” Moore said. “If there’s shots fired and the officer is coming in, how is he going to know who you are?”
The bill states that no significant fiscal implication to the state is anticipated. Yet according to fiscal analyses obtained by the Houston Chronicle, UH would need $3 million in its first year of the bill’s implementation and an another $1.2 million annually to create and maintain weapons storage facilities as well as train and hire additional security personnel.
“These costs are entirely fabricated,” Hythier said. “The bills passing would allow CHL holders to carry concealed handguns on their person on campus, eliminating such needs for storage or additional training.”
Yikes, if the police can’t tell the difference between a CHL holder and a guy shooting on-campus then what happens? What if you defend yourself but instead someone else comes by and shoots you thinking you’re a campus shooter? So many scenarios to think about.
This is no different than the CHL situation off campus. Only those who haven’t bothered to think about it before are surprised by hearing about it.
The risk, and how to mitigate it, is well known and understood by those with CHLs.
The risks and those who think about it is mitigated by the unknown, the unpredictable, and by chance — none of which your CHL permit will protect you against. Some assailants ARE excellent shots; Your gun MAY actually jam; you actually MAY misfire, or miss your target and you actually MAY be mistaken for the bad guy and get shot yourself by an officer. To think otherwise is just arrogant cockiness which is a lethal outlook.
Mitigation implies that an event causes both positive and negative outcomes equal to each other. But you’ve only suggested ways in which the positive outcomes might not occur.
The probability of a CHL saving lives is greater than that of the CHL causing additional deaths.
Probability? Based on what? NRA propaganda?. One authority might be the CDC, but alas, the NRA has been steadfast in lobbying to block federal funding to do such studies. I hear a lot of this talk about how guns are so good for society, to keep us safe yet studies attempting to take a serious look and guns and violence are repeatedly stonewalled. It’s not even possible to begin any kind of honest discourse of the subject without the hard data to back it up. Or should we just rely on the hype of a pro-gun lobbyist and the millions they spread promulgating their message on behalf of gun manufacturers and call that “truth”?
Very few actually believe that all situations will work out to be best case scenarios. Rational, practical, people though have given careful consideration to the risks, weighed the possible outcomes, and still are in favor of CHL’s generally and on campus.
If you’re interested in engaging with real ideas rather than the hero-fantasies you allege your opponents to have, we should meet up at The Nook sometime. Send me an email: [email protected]
UHPD Chief Ceaser Moore is spouting administration pablum, not facts or figures. The Chief is nothing more than a puppet for the administration. There
are NO storage costs or any other costs, for that matter. The Chronicle
is fear-mongering as usual.
““If there’s an active shooter on campus and you go to help the police, the police don’t know who you are,” Moore said. “If there’s shots fired and the officer is coming in, how is he going to know who you are?””
That is not what CHL holders do. They have their weapons in case police are not around. If you have to lie to promote your position, you have already failed.
Being a CHL holder, and a UH Employee, in such a situation, the minute an officer showed up, my hands would be up in the air so there wasn’t confusion.
Libertarian Texas: Please name an incident in which you intervened at a college campus to heroically save the day in the absence of a paid, trained, member of campus security. Please give details. Please name the officer who eventually showed up to deal with the incident; I want to look it up on his incident log. It sounds like you are the one who is lying to help promote the NRA fantasy of the good guy with a gun myth.
“Please name an incident in which you intervened at a college campus”
You realize that carrying on campus is not yet legal, right? Why would a law-abiding citizen break the law to jump through the ignorant hoop you just placed?
Thanks for the dishonest approach to debate though. It really made a good point.
So you’re saying that all that CHL hoopla about what CHL holders do “in case police are not around,” — which was your example of how, presumably, guns makes us safer — is not actually true? Sounds like you’ve mopped yourself into a philosophical corner.
Not at all. I can’t be held responsible for your poor reading comprehension:
“If there’s an active shooter on campus and you go to help the police,”
If there is an active shooter anywhere, CHL holders do not go help the police. CHL holders maintain the right to defend themselves in situations where police are not immediately available. You chose to either ignorantly or deliberately twist my words to pretend that I was saying something to support your restrictive agenda where I was not.
Here’s what you wrote: “That is not what CHL holders do. They have their weapons in case police are not around.” Where in that quote do you say, this only applies in a self-defense situation? You wrote it to imply a more broad, heroic scenario. It’s a direct quote. Now you’re just back-peddling to cover your ass. Nice try. And why would you presume that you’re a better shot than the criminal? Or that he may be able to disarm you by the element of surprise? The problem with your scenario is its very one-sided, which is not very realistic. How many shoot-outs have you been in that give you such insight?
This is going to make my bus rides to school much less stressful. I don’t worry so much on campus, but my Metro route brings me in contact with some pretty shady characters. I do worry sometimes they will follow me off the bus, at my stop, and do their criminal business once the bus and witnesses drive away.
I ride the bus to school. I do not fantasize about NRA-type scenarios which always play out in favor of the gun hero, which helps to sell guns even as it helps heighten one’s sense of paranoia. Also Metro drivers will respond to anyone’s feeling threatened. Metro has their own police force just as well trained as HPD who will respond if you feel threatened. Have you spoken to a bus driver about your fears?
This is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve heard of this state’s legislators ever passing. College students with guns. Yeah, right………that is really going to work. Unbelievable.
Yeah, why should they have civil rights?
You have civil rights. But they do not include your right to add a multiplying factor to the lack of safety by adding lethal weapons at a place where there is also a lot of booze and impulsive, immature thinking.
“But they do not include your right to add a multiplying factor to the lack of safety by adding lethal weapons at a place where there is also a lot of booze and impulsive, immature thinking.”
I must have missed that line in the Constitution. Was it before or after the words “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”?
If you’re only fall back is Scalia’s Heller decision, I would remind you that four SCOTUS jurists were vehemently opposed to it. If you bother to read the amicus curiae briefs from Constitutional scholars and historians who specialize in colonial American culture, you would find that Scalia’s “originalist” position did not rely on 18th century thinking but 19th. IOW his “originalist, ” position has been denounced as disingenuous and patently false. If you’re actually concerned about civil rights that should concern you more. The 2nd Amendment misinterpretation by the NRA is not a valid historical argument; those of us with actual historical training in the period know this. And snatching a few quotes from the Federalist papers is just as misguided.
My was directly from the Constitution, not that a piece of paper grants anyone’s rights. The right to defend yourself from attack is inherent to every person, not just Americans.
No one would dispute your right to life and to defend against an intruder; the argument is that guns, like everything else in our modern lives, should be regulated for safety’s sake. There are sensible regulations, but arming everyone for paranoid NRA reasons of imaginary assaults or because for every bad guy there should be a good guy with a gun is insidious. There was no good guy tonight when a young student at UH was held up at gunpoint and robbed of his backpack, (UH security case # 15-0607) and imagining that his being armed would have improved his chances ignores the possibility that his assailant may have been a better shot, his own gun may have jammed, or misfired. The solution is to reduce guns so there are fewer in circulation for the “bad guys” to get in the first place. Fewer guns = fewer gun assaults / deaths. Bad guys don’t pluck guns off bad guy gun trees; they get them usually legally from unregulated sales, from the Internet, etc. More guns are acquired by legal mean than illegal. The trick is to make that process difficult — except for those with the training, knowhow, and experience to handle them. Roughly, theft accounts for only 15% of the ways in which guns are acquired by criminals; the majority are acquired through a combination of 2nd-hand purchases, — what the ATF calls, “straw man purchases,” — from friends, or from vendors dealing illegally. In short, it is the lax loop holes and pro-gun laws that provide the very channels which criminals exploit. Who needs to steal them? Only the dumb criminals. There’s also an extensive black maket held up by the same gun dealers selling guns to legal purchasers. IOW — they play both sides for the profits. They are deadly weapons designed for one purpose and one purpose only; to kill. They should be treated as the lethal force they are. Unfortunately, our culture spends billions romanticizing them and their manufacturers and their lobbyists spend millions more treating them as a civil “right” and an crime deterrent which keeps the pipeline flowing to both the good and bad guys. And the only folks getting any real benefit? The gun manufacturers and their bank accounts.
“No one would dispute your right to life and to defend against an intruder; the argument is that guns, like everything else in our modern lives, should be regulated for safety’s sake. ”
And what about my right to defend myself from attack when I am not at home? I see that you make the usual fallacy of assuming that exchanging liberty for security will actually result in increased safety despite all of the history against that narrative.
“but arming everyone”
More hyperbole. I do not want to arm anyone. I just want my rights to not be infringed upon.
“There was no good guy tonight when a young student at UH was held up at gunpoint and robbed of his backpack, (UH security case # 15-0607) and imagining that his being armed would have improved his chances ignores the possibility that his assailant may have been a better shot, his own gun may have jammed, or misfired.”
And your solution is to not even give them the chance, just a guarantee to be a victim. Do you think criminals would be as prevalent if they knew it was much more likely that their targeted victims were armed and could shoot back?
“The solution is to reduce guns so there are fewer in circulation for the “bad guys” to get in the first place. Fewer guns = fewer gun assaults / deaths.”
That is demonstrably false given gun violence statistics compared between states with harsh regulation and states with less. Also, your idea of a solution comes at the expense of my rights so its a non-starter. What if my solution of a way to prevent all crime was to imprison everyone? That would accomplish my goal at your expense and I’c certain you wouldn’t support that nonsense.
“There’s also an extensive black market”
“our culture spends billions romanticizing them and their manufacturers and their lobbyists spend millions more treating them as a civil “right””
As I said earlier, it is an inherent right, regardless of your opinion. No amount of spending or prohibition will change this.
Literally every premise you base your arguments upon are flawed. You should really stop trying to restrict the rights of others based on your appeals to emotion and disregard for liberty.
The “rights” argument comes from NRA’s hailing of the Heller decision which, as I pointed out was not based “originalist” thinking. An individual was consider to have a “right” to a weapon in service to his country in the military. That’s why the second amendment is the only amendment with an explanatory clause.The founders believed in *both* liberty AND regulation. Scalia took his cue from the gun craze and sale of guns following the war of 1812. Many Constitutional legal scholars have made this abundantly clear and denounced Scalia’s failure to uphold originalist doctrine which was a failure of Constitutional interpretation principles for which there are guidelines. The four dissenting justices also point this out. Scalia was a rogue in that regard. IOW, your individual right, is actually not in the 2nd Amendment, — Scalia PUT that spin on it which, let me repeat, is based on gun hysteria in the 19th century sales after the war. A similar pattern can be seen after 9/11 and after the Boston Marathon bombing. The “rights” screed does not work on anyone who knows 18th century thinking which Scalia failed to use. And no amount of your emotional pleas to defend yourself against the imaginary attacker will ever change that simple fact. Have a good night.
Are you illiterate? I stated that rights do not originate from paper (or governments for that matter). My right to defend myself is inherent. You are attempting to make a legalese argument against a position I have not taken.
On what philosophy do you base this “inherent” right?. It’s not in the Declaration of Human Rights, which speaks only of voting, economic and social rights, for those of us who’ve discussed this in anthropology classes. the DHR is the document most widely considered the modern foundation of the notion of human rights. Nowhere does it talk about guns or the militia. The only place in the U.S. you find that is in the 2nd Amendment which, again, the NRA has used to promote your notion of what you claim as an “inherent” right. When the framers spoke of “liberty” what did they mean? In what context? Because to understand that, you have to understand what “liberty” meant to an 18th century enlightenment thinker, and even to an uneducated colonist. You can’t apply post modern thinking to 18th century thinking any more than it is reasonable to do the reverse. Would we think a reasonable punishment for a crime is a public whipping at the town square? Or that tarring and feathering is how to treat a political opponent? Should dueling be brought back to settle conflicts when one’s honor is besmirched? Actually, the concepts embedded in our Bill of Rights do very much stem from paper. The Enlightenment framers were not snatching ideas out of the aether; they were being influenced by a combination of contemporary enlightenment writers and thinkers, religion and experience — all of which can be traced through documented (written) records . My argument is not a legal one; its a historical one. This is why those who denounced Scalia’s Heller’s opinion most were constitutional legal scholars and period historical experts. IOW the mindset that finds a justification for individual gun rights in the 2nd Amendment will not find that same thinking among 18th century thinking or cultural values.
http://en.wikipedia.Org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
And the fact that you use examples of harming others as a reason to oppose a harmless act speaks volumes to your disconnect between your rhetoric and rationality.
Wikipedia? Really? That’s the best you got?
You asked where my rights come from and I gave you a source of information explaining it. Ad hominem much?
Unfortunately Wikipedia is not considered an “authority” on any topic. At my university, students are routinely warned against citing it as a source by professors and librarians. At best one can sometimes use the references in the source citations of a given entry to find the original source and then review it for accuracy. The fact that you use it prima facia (I’m using that Latin expression because you seem to like them, ) calls into question your ability to use authoritative sources to support your position.
If the internet is too scary for you and you are arguing the merit of the description of natural rights as a red herring then I will happily direct you to your nearest Encyclopedia Britannica. You are really racking up the logical fallacies here.
I said nothing about red herrings, being scared of the internet, etc. While your attempts to deconstruct my syllogism is lame and rather junior high schoolish, doing so does not strengthen your position. If your only references to the concept of natural rights are encyclopedia entries, I would suggest you study up on the subject first *before* trying to claim you have a natural right to a gun. That’s a bit of a stretch. If you’re interested in the scholarship on natural rights, the Internet is full of it; but you won’t find much on a concept of gun rights as natural rights — at least not among those who understand the idea of natural rights. Researchers like me use the Internet all the time; it’s a great tool. Its especially useful in finding scanned original documents from academic repositories and full text academic journal articles. You should try it sometime.
“I said nothing about red herrings”
“Wikipedia is not considered an “authority””
You contradict yourself.
“trying to claim you have a natural right to a gun”
I have never claimed a right to an object. I claim a right to self-defense. If I choose to buy a gun, that is not the same argument as saying I am entitled to a gun.
You are willfully ignorant and I’m not going to bother responding to you anymore. Have a good day and try not to panic too much knowing that law abiding people are conceal carrying all around you.
What about employees…
Definitely agree with the points regarding criminals not abiding by the laws and gun-free zones make those people defenseless who are law abiding citizens.
I’m a former competitive shooter, and I have trained and competed with dozens of police officers over the years. None of them, and I mean none of them were against conceal carry for civilians.
So, when I see organizations made of police chiefs who are against such laws I can’t help but think part of taking the high-dollar job is turning in their backbone for an administrator’s mindset.
Since the most vocal of these chiefs tend to be in big liberal cities I have to hope that their backbone is still there, but they have to parrot the mindset of their bosses – who tend to be liberals in favor disarming law-abiders hoping that makes criminals stop carrying guns to work.
Granted, the LEOs I have shared range time with were mere foot-soldiers on the streets in the chain of command. Somehow they seem more in tune with the people more than the person who seeks the desk and air conditioning style of policing.
I don’t know UHPD Chief Ceaser Moore, nor have I read his biography or previous position papers, and I have no clue of his field training. So, I am not sure why he makes the following quote with a straight face: “If there’s an active shooter on campus and you go to help the police, the police don’t know who you are,” Moore said. “If there’s shots fired and the officer is coming in, how is he going to know who you are?”
I can only hope he said that quote because his superiors held a proverbial gun to head because that’s just not how typical self-defense scenarios play out.
Real-world gun fights are localized and they are fast – meaning the fights are over well before the police are called to deal with an assailant and his legally-armed victim.
Furthermore, police are (should be) trained to expect both armed bad guys and armed good guys — whether it is an off-duty/undercover cop or armed civilians.
Lastly, it should be easy to distinguish good guys with guns because they are likely to be in the crowd shooting towards a bad guy, not shooting into a crowd of people — as a bad guy would be doing.
I’ll give the chief the benefit of the doubt, because I don’t want to believe he would choose his quote’s line of thinking if it were his children or family who were legally able to defend themselves in a lawful self-defense situation.
Which leads me to the next point, the elephant always in the room regarding police officers and crime. In most cases the police arrive well after a crime has been committed, the victims have been created and the assailants are already on the run.
The chief knows this, and so I don’t want to believe he truly feels people should just lie still and wait for their violent encounter to be over and, more importantly, until he gets there.
I have to believe any self-respecting and people-respecting law officer knows they are likely to have little do with whatever violence happens to someone (in the moment) other than arrive afterwards, take statements and collect evidence, and hopefully hunt down and apprehend the criminal later. I’m not saying police don’t thwart crime by having visibility, but that’s just not the way it is most of the time.
But, as I said earlier, I don’t worry so much about danger at the school, I worry about my commute on a Metro bus. I worry about the people who have to walk out to distant parking lots (day or night). Lately, even residents of campus housing have encountered violence.
Our self-defense weapons tend to be used when making our way to or from somewhere. No matter how great a school UH is becoming, it can’t be denied it sits in one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in America (see the Chronicle story from April 30, 2013). Denying your customers the right to protect themselves is not a good way to run a business.
Consider this my “Like” button
Charles: your rhetoric is both wrong and sensationalistic. Liberals are not gathering in dark places at night plotting against legal gun owners. These liberals are husbands, wife, mothers and fathers, teachers, and students, police chiefs and citizens who want safety. They want to plug holes in background checks; they want common sense gun laws which will end the slaughter. This is not about taking away guns; this is about keeping them out of the hands of those who don’t need them. There is no constitutional right to gun ownership for a person with a mental disability. Yet in every case of mass killing it was determined the assailant suffered a mental disability. Why then do state legislatures not insist that mental background checks not be part of the standard FBI check? Why do they insist, instead that it is safer to just open the flood gates to allow more people to own guns which no checks in place? Or why do people like you insist that we should “tighten” laws already in place, but then do nothing to help do that, or worse , block efforts to do so by propagating the absurd myth of gun-grabbing liberals? Why do you demonize the people who’s efforts may help save you or someone you love from needless tragedy? You cannot be everywhere at once. The good guy with a gun is a hoax and a myth. Why help perpetuate the most lethal weapon a person can possess in the name of safety? Every day there is an article in the paper — often in Houston — of a needless gun death. Never is there a good guy with a gun to prevent it. Yet, there are those willing to advocate to help stop the carnage. Why would anybody in his right mind be against that?
As a CHL holder I recently had a discussion with multiple friends who are officers. I asked “How many practice rounds do you run through each year? What do you have to do to stay certified to carry your firearm?” I was shocked to learn that as a mere CHL holder my girlfriends and I, individually, target shoot more often and more rounds than PEACE OFFICERS. No thanks…I’ll take armed (responsible and well practiced) citizens over the police…so save that budget money.
This does not sound like an actual conversation. If you contact Houston Police Department they will be happy to contradict everything you just said.
Erm, there is NOTHING in the law that states that the university can force its to hand over their weapons if they have a CHL. Hell, this would actually mean a studen WITHOUT a CHL could leave his room in his dorm/car/house as per current state law allows the transportation to retail stores and keeping it in a place of residence. The UH administration, whom are throwing out these bloated figures, are simply trying to weasle out of being subject to this law. Same as the police chief; if the HCSO, HPD, Houston Constables, etc. can distinguish a concealed carrying citizen from a turd, then why is it so hard for UHPD to do so? Are they THAT unprofessional? These past articles about the bill, and the administration’s scare tactics are just misinformation being thrown out to confuse the public and the greater student population of UH.
As a senior @UH I have read some retarded things in the daily cougar. All I have to say is, stop lying to us. Stop making up numbers. I am done with the daily cougar, I pray I get the chance one day as an alumni to reach out to the faculty and administration at our school and weed out the nutcases running the school newspaper.
As someone largely clueless on the subject, I am curious what numbers you are talking about. What in this post do you consider a lie?
As a senior at UH, I would hate to ever listen to you on a debate team.
As an older UH student I get upset when people make the argument that I and others my age are to immature to carry on a university campus. Yet when we go to our jobs in the private sector no one would dare say that.
Also if you ask the students who want to carry their concerns are not about some random shooter, it is about getting mugged/assaulted on their way out of campus late at night. What those manual crime reports do not show is students who are victims of crime just off campus and those that are not reported. Every responsible student over the age of 21 who wants to carry to defend themselves should have the right to do so.
dGratt: what happens when the gun is taken away, or the assailant is a better shot or the student’s gun jams, misfires, or the armed student misses? How many of these possibilities have you factored into your scenario where the armed student always wins?
Unfortunately, The Daily Cougar failed to clarify what Chief Moore was referring to when he discussed “storage costs”. The bills call for universities to provide weapons storage in residence halls. So, yes, there is a significant cost associated with providing large, secure storage for weapons, and for staff and security to handle those weapons being stored in residence halls.
Costs which will be passed along to students in the form of increased fees. Fees from which many UH students — including myself — will never directly benefit from. Yes, let’s find creative ways to increase student costs at a time of skyrocketing student debt. Brilliant! If the state mandates it, the state should pay for it. Wonder how that would play with taxpayers outside the academy?
The idea that a student at any university needs a weapon to protect himself is little more that the hysteria being manufactured by the NRA in order to help their lobby efforts and their gun manufacturing clients sell deadly products. A few hours at a shooting range is no match for a well trained officer with years of experience. The paranoia that emanates from the pro-gun rhetoric is nothing but regurgitated media hype. If the synthetic calculus were true that guns makes us safer than surely by now, given the exorbitant amount of guns already in legal possession of those who have them — including private citizens and constabulary combined — our culture in general would be the safest place on the planet. Yet the fear of the imaginary assailant (and his opponent , the mythical “good guy” with a gun savior,) is stronger than ever, and every incident of assault is used to justify, yet again, why someone should buy a gun. Yet no one can explain why, with a citizenry now armed to the teeth, why gun deaths, accidents, and crimes involving guns has not gone down nor why, in fact gun sales have skyrocketed. The NRA and their cronies spend tens of millions yearly crafting and promoting a message that targets both naïve patriotism and paranoia in order to create a false hysteria to persuade people to buy deadly weapons. Many advertising and marketing specialists know that the best way to sell a product is not by just offering it cheaper or faster, but by creating a craving for it. Some do so by creating a false problem and then offering one solution — their product. “Tired of stubborn stains? Try ‘Bleach Out’ It works!” to give a simple example. This is exactly what the NRA has done for the gun manufacturers. Tired of crime? Buy a gun — is their basic message. Judging by the reaction of many commentators — some of which read suspiciously like planted comments — that scary message strategy, however, sells millions of guns. Allowing guns on campus is not about safety; its about a slimy marketing pitch aimed at the fearful who think owning a gun is an act of patriotism and bravado that is shot full of holes. Already there is talk amongst adjuncts and faculty that if guns are allowed on campus they will leave. Is this really the price we’re willing to pay so some gun-toting student can brag about his “gun rights.”?
Hey, how about the recent stick up ON CAMPUS! Thugs might think twice if people were able to defend themselves. I honestly don’t feel safe at UH.
Furthermore, in order to protect yourself WHEN you walk to your car ON CAMPUS you would have to have carried your gun to class. Lets try on this, “Oh wait Mr. Thug, i need to go to my car… i mean travel home and get my gun and come back… so I have a chance to defend myself.” Not only would I carry a weapon for myself, but I would carry a weapon to defend anyone around me subject to being threatened by deadly force. I WOULD risk my life on the principle of protecting the life and liberty of fellow citizens.