The University of Houston Police Department recently created a survey for students to suggest solutions to help the campus carry work group, comprised of 15 representatives of various campus organizations and university departments, in the creation of UH’s campus carry policy.
The survey comes at a time when gun control on college campuses has become a sensitive issue.
Last June, Gov. Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill No. 11 into effect, otherwise known as campus carry. It allows concealed handguns on college campuses in Texas by legal gun owners, including students.
The bill prohibits university presidents from generally banning licensed carry on campus, but they may institute some policy through actions such as designating gun-free zones on campus.
According to a press release from the Department of Public Safety, the University has assigned the group with the responsibility to develop a campus carry policy compliant with the new law.
The campus carry frequently asked questions page from UHPD states that the group is to submit a policy for approval by May 2016, which will be enacted in August that same year.
Though many pro-gun advocates consider this a victory, many students at UH are divided on the issue.
“They say the shooter in Oregon had a concealed handgun license, so how is someone else having a concealed handgun license on campus going to stop that?” creative writing sophomore Lane Myers said.
“I understand next time (that if) the crazy person starts shooting, someone else can shoot him but what is that doing? We’re so fearful that we’re giving people more power to hurt more people and it’s scary.”
Psychology sophomore Efe Ajayi said that while the policy promises protection, it cannot actually make anyone any safer.
“I respect the idea that people want to protect themselves and be able to carry their weapons but I also respect the value of a human life,” Ajayi said. “As a logical person, I can see how having a gun on campus could lead to a situation that one would want to prevent.”
Frankly, that survey is really dumb. All it does is ask questions about how to accommodate campus carry and not what students think about it in general. It asks questions like, “Please give your input on which buildings or areas on campus where
concealed handguns should be prohibited,” to which everyone should reply, “The vicinity enclosed by Spur 5, Elgin St., Scott St., and Wheeler Ave.”
That’s not possible under the law. You are in college. Learn what the law says.
I know what the law says. The statement was about how no one seems to care what the students think about a law that will profoundly affect their lives and how we can express that opinion in a survey that permits very little room for it.
And what does where I happen to be at the moment have anything to do my knowledge of the law? That’s like saying, “You’re in space, learn how to identify insects.”
Legislators every session create laws that effect people who might disagree with such laws. That’s life. If you feel you will be “profoundly” effected then vote those who approved it out of office.
BTW, do you really think you are safer w/in the campus perimeter today due to current law prohibiting CHL holders to legally carry? CHL holders that, as the TX DPS has tracked since CHL became legal, are exponentially more law abiding than your fellow citizens and classmates? CHL holders that are already among you, but forced to leave their firearm in their car (where it could be stolen) when attending classes. Do you believe these CHL holders who go on throughout their day, carrying legally in every public and most private spaces beside you, will for some reason, as soon as they arrive on campus, cause some event that “profoundly” effects you??? Is that even logical??
If the current campus antigun laws are so effective, why don’t we similarly post signs throughout the Third Ward banning robbery, assault, car jacking, rape, auto theft, etc.?? Would that make you “feel” safer walking out to your car parked in one of the outer lots after studying late in the library?? Would you be?
No, I don’t feel safer. I already don’t feel safe knowing that at any moment someone could open fire on a classroom full of students. I won’t feel any safer knowing that at any moment a student could open fire on a classroom and when several students retaliate in kind the classroom becomes a warzone.
That being said, if crime on campus goes down dramatically after January 2016 then color me bloody baffled, but you’ll have to excuse me if I remain skeptical/fearful in the meantime.
So, in the extremely unlikely event there is a mass shooter, you would rather have the shooter have free-reign, slowly picking-off victim by victim, making his way towards you, because you’re afraid some CHL holder might fight back creating a “war zone?”
That just does not make any sense to me.
As mentioned earlier, CHL holders are not an additional security force to reduce crime. They carry to protect themselves and their family. They carry because they know the only person responsible for their safety is themselves. Not the (campus) police, who show up after the crime is committed. The last thing any CHL holder wants to do is pull out his/her firearm.
http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-lessons-from-officers-perspectives/
Since your brought up law enforcement…
There are no references unless someone can provide them, that anyone is saying he was a license holder for a weapon. Licensed carry IS a way of showing that you value human life, yours, as well as those you protect.
The myth of the “law-abiding” licensed gun owner who will risk his life for others has not played out on any campus. Ever. It did not in Oregon. There were licensed students there. What stopped them from acting for the benefit of others to stop the slaughter? Giving a person a licence has not stopped a single killer. All the myth does is help gun sales under the lie that your gun will help protect you and others. It has does not stoped a single mass shootings. That is the reality. In the public arena, it’s even worse as self-appointed vigilantes shoot wildly at what they perceive as a “bad guy” with no thought to the perils of shooting a gun in a populated place or the criminal and civil liabilities which may ensure as a consequence. A licence is no guarantee that a gun owner will act judiciously and more than a licence to drive a car prevents car deaths or crazy drivers. Creating a mythology behind a gun licence is absurd.
You should listen to what other “responsible” gun owners have to say about restrictions and gun control. You might learn something. Just having a CHL is not evidence of anything accept that you can fill out a piece of paper.
There’s a perfect quote for every post you have made touting your proclaimed knowledge of gun laws, CHL process, gun crime statistics, and firearms in general.
“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”
Mark Twain
I have made no such claims. Thanks for sharing. Now watch the video and learn something instead of just trying to blunt efforts to end the violence. And if it’s pithy saying about ignorance you after, try Plato: “Some people are not just comfortable with their own ignorance, they are hostile to those who point it out.” Which describes you and those commenting here in favor of Campus Carry who themselves will likely never step foot on this campus nor be at risk for a stray bullet from some Dirty Harry wannabe or some student who snapped over a bad grade. precisely. But they’ll full of arguments and BS. Adieu.
Image (c) Austin-American Statesman
I have made no such claims. Thanks for sharing. Now watch the video and learn something instead of just trying to blunt efforts to end the violence. And if it’s pithy saying about ignorance you’re after, try Plato:
“Some people are not just comfortable with their own ignorance, they are hostile to those who point it out.”
Which describes you and those commenting here in favor of Campus Carry precisely — people who themselves will likely never step foot on this campus nor be at risk for a stray bullet from some Dirty Harry wannabe or some student who snapped over a bad grade or who came onto campus with an arsenal because no one was allowed to stop him entering a building armed with guns. But they’ll full of garbage arguments and self-righteous BS. Adieu.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bd03501365c3d1041134ce50c39686136c131f803995b8211689aa0667432f11.jpg
Sure, because as soon as you step off campus, where concealed licensed carry is legal, what you describe, and is portrayed in your silly cartoon, occurs everyday!!
Talk about ignorant….
I’m supposed to be enlightened by a video that’s made the rounds on every liberal anti-gun website on the internet? Wow, I didn’t know old men youtube videos held such high regard… Oh, it must be because he’s someone who “owns a gun” that makes it credible to anti-gun folks.
“Hey, look over here, it’s someone who “owns a gun,” and he has the same opinions as us.!!”
Someone who, like most anti-gunners, focuses on the word “militia” in the 2nd amendment, but ignores the words “the people.”
Someone who focuses on stupid question boxes you fill out on a form, but ignores the actual background check conducted by the FBI’s NCIC…..
Someone who doesn’t understand the difference btw a right guaranteed by the Constitution (to bear arms), and a privilege granted by a state (drivers license)….
Someone who obviously believes only people who had the same training he had as a police officer should own guns. Ya know, because the police are such good shots.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-08/nypd-cops-fire-84-shots-murder-suspect-miss-83-times
I could go on, but the mere fact in your initial post you thought he was talking about obtaining a CHL, truly shows how ignorant you are about this topic.
Once again, take heed to Mr. Twains advice.
The fact that you’re so virulently hung up on a very bad interpretation of what a colonial militia was is laughable. I’ve studied the colonial period academically. If you think anyone with a gun and a piece of paper represents some kind of self-appointed militia, whose rights are protected, I have bad news for you — they are not. I would strongly advise you to re-read the Heller decision — which is what your entire rebuttal is based on. You have a silly Mark Twin quote which you pulled from who knows where. I have recorded history and academic training.
The reality is, the militia in the 18th century was highly regulated; the militias were formed formed by a Royal governor commission — like Road supervisors or a county surveyor. And their weapons and gunpowder kept in community arsenals. When the first shots were fired at Lexington, it was because the Redcoats were marching there to destroy the arsenal, hoping to weaken Rebel resistance. No weapons, no resistance. When they were confronted, few rebels had arms; most fled and were shot in the back. It was not until Concord that they were able to get arms enough to reply. As for the Second Amendment, it has to do with a “well regulated militia” which was not organized when it was called out for the Siege of Boston — which was the only military force the colonies had. They represented many county militias. Washington often complained about the problems, etc. So if you think the 2nd Amendment as it is interpreted today has any historical precedent, I suggest you learn to wear a powdered wig and crap in a chamber pot — because that is the only way to understand it in context. Robert’s “originalist” thinking and Opinion had nothing whatsoever to do with the way 18th century militias thought about firearms or protections. They were assigned by commissions — not just self-appointed. Legal scholars have roundly denounced Robert’s rogue interpretation as did jurists like Scalia. You’re utterly clueless. No further replies from me for your drivel.
“They say the shooter in Oregon had a concealed handgun license, so how is someone else having a concealed handgun license on campus going to stop that?” creative writing sophomore Lane Myers said.”
The mere fact that the author of this piece didn’t know better than to clarify this students statement as incorrect is not surprising. Truth in journalism is dead. There is a reason why the publics opinion and trust of the media is in the toilet.