| Art by Herschel Levin/The Cougar
I have owned and used a variety of firearms for most of my adult life. I made certain to teach my daughters the responsibility of owning and using firearms, the uses of different weapons for a variety of purposes and how to respect the seriousness of gun ownership.
I am 85 years old and in my 13th, and possibly last, semester of college life. It’s a shame because I enjoy learning from professors who have great intelligence and imagination. But I am living in a 178-pound human frame made of flesh, bone, veins and organs. I cannot afford the risk of having a hole put in any of these body parts.
Campus carry will allegedly make us feel safe by allowing students to carry handguns, as we did back in the early 1850s. It is a regressive move and one that has been instituted with the utmost stupidity.
Having been on campuses for 13 semesters, I have learned to love, respect and understand my fellow college students. But I would be an ignoramus if in all those years I had not learned the shortcomings of many of them. Without campus carry, I have seen shootings and stabbings of innocent students by other students who cracked under pressure.
According to this extensive study, Pejorative Characterizations of Gun Ownership, there is no single reason that gun ownership exists and every theory has a reputable repudiation.
I am a tough man. In my lifetime, I have defended my beliefs to the point where I have spilled my blood and that of others. I haven’t always won, but I have been held against my will behind the Iron Curtain. I have been shot at by enemies, and I have shot enemies. But these things are not fun, and simply make great stories for my grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
If I walk into a classroom and my instructor does not want to share his intellect with me because of a fear of retaliation by an idiot carrying a pistol who might take umbrage with his story, then that student has interfered with my constitutional right to the education that I am paying for. They are interfering with said education and should be removed from the classroom.
We students, thanks to a weak and narrow-minded legislature, are going to lose instructors and professors who have spent years developing their expertise of a subject so as to pass it on to us. But being intelligent should not mean willing to risk your life in order to teach.
Keep guns off of school campuses. There is no legitimate reason to have anyone other than campus police armed on a university campus.
Opinion columnist Ken Levin is a political science senior and may be reached at [email protected]
The Virgina Tech shooter to cite one example had a different opinion about guns on college campuses, wouldn’t you agree? He walk up and down the halls slaughtering people with impunity because no one there had the means to stop him. No who is being stupid.
You, John Shooter! Why did the VTU shooter have a gun in the 1st place? You take a tragedy and exploit it. Shame on you.
No, no, no more guns. guns are never the answer. Take it from someone who has been held hostage and grew up in acres homes. Professors will not speak freely. Something people forget is that everyone will be able to carry. Those protesters on campus… Will have gun. The idiot in your class… Will have a gun. The mentally ill… Will have a gun. The racist, the bigot, the predator, the drunks, drug users, zealots, the people on the bus, in the parking lot, in the uc, not to mention average young people who make bad choices will all have guns.
You commit to writing your ignorance.
Actually, he makes a lot of sense.
“Something people forget is that everyone will be able to carry”…”The mentally ill… Will have a gun.”
You’re kidding me, right…? You’re either ignorant or you’re content to spread lies.
Only licensed (which means 21+ years old, state and federally psychological and criminal background checks, fingerprints, a legal course, and a shooting test), law-abiding residents will be able to carry. These license holders have a 10-15 times lower rate of violent crime than the general populace and 5 times lower rate of violent crime than the police do… There are about 4% of people in Texas that have that license. Stop spreading lies.
“the predator, the drunks, drug users”
The first is a felon, and therefore barred from ever touching a firearm again; the other two are legally barred from purchasing firearms and will not get their carry permits, therefore, banning them from having guns on campus.
“not to mention average young people who make bad choices will all have guns.”
Again, no. The ‘young people’ also have an extremely low rate of carry licensing. So, of the 4% state average, these ‘young people’ will be less than 1%, which, by simple math (Freshmen and sophomores are under 21, and half of the juniors are under 21), puts us at less than a quarter of a percent of students on campus that would carry. Realistically, that would be less than 125 students on campus. Hardly the 40,000 people with guns that you predict.
Seriously, either learn about the topics or stop purposefully lying to yourself and everyone else.
Overtonejunkie; Licensed? Are you kidding me? I read an article the other day where they were giving the permits away. Please, your junk has been proven wrong again and again.
please, show me where they are giving these away for free, I had to work and pay for mine.
Work? Please a four hour class and a test a 1st grader could pass. If you know where to go you can walk out with a permit in an hour without doing anything.
again, sources of your allegations are needed. If you think the legal test would be passable by a first grader, then you must think that first graders have quite an extensive background with the particulars of carry and storage laws, as well as de-escalation techniques.
If I can find it you can too. You might actually learn something along the way.
The licence needed to own a gun or conceal carry it are both extremely easy to get. “Licence” in the requirement protocol needed to obtain a gun in Texas, let alone a CHL, does not in any professional sense mean “qualified,” nor “trained.” It’s just a buzz word CHL zealots toss around as if the word itself should carry any authority. How absurd.
You need a license to own a firearm in Texas? You may want to check your sources again on that one. Though, yes, you do need a license to carry a firearm in Texas.
I never said that they were expert marksmen, just that they demonstrated how to operate a firearm. Training is a huge part of carrying, and the stats show that this is taken seriously by the vast majority of carriers (carriers are convicted of violent crimes at a much lower rate, 10-15 times less, than the general populace and even a lower rate, 4-6 times less, than that of police officers).
On thing you conveniently leave out is that these carriers are subjected to the same fingerprinting and thorough metal and criminal background checks as they would in Texas. Something as simple as admitting to a joint in your pocket will disqualify you from getting a carry licence. In fact, you don’t even have to be convicted of it, if you are arrested several times for possession of controlled substances, you are automatically removed eligibility. A conviction of a misdemeanor in the past three years will also ban you from getting your carry license. If you have a restraining order against you, you will also not be allowed to have a carry permit. Basically, anything greater than a traffic ticket will disqualify you from getting a carry license.
The DPS drivel you’re citing has nothing to do with college kids carrying weapons. That data is not available via DPS records. Lots of “convictions” get tossed or are plead out or adjudicated otherwise or just never occur due to what’s sometimes called “no information,” meaning the case wasn’t strong enough. Does that mean an arrest was never made, that an incident never occurred? No. What you will also not find are registries of CHLs among campus police departments and no notations on incident reports regarding the CHL status of a person fined or arrested in a campus-related crime if a gun was used. Ergo, there is no database from which to draw conclusions. regarding college students with CHLs being highly “law abiding.” I really don’t know why CHL enthusiasts love to used those DPS stats so sloppily. I can only imagine its because they don’t understand the justice system or they do and think exaggerating claims is somehow impressive. What you will find however, if you look at the CHL applications in the 77004 zip code area (where UH resides) is a marked increase in CHL applications, — 73 in 2014 — a four fold increase over a 10-year period — but not a marked DECREASE in personal or property crimes in the same area, looking at police report stats over the same period. Ergo the more guns = less crime hypothesis is bunk. We’ve examined it. It’s trash.
“The DPS drivel you’re citing has nothing to do with college kids carrying weapons. ”
Again, we’re talking about 21+ year olds, and a lot of them will be veterans. No, you’re wrong. If a college-attending adult has a CHL, he or she will be counted among those lists. I know several that have their license and they’re all counted by the Texas DPS.
“if you look at the CHL applications in the 77004 zip code area (where UH resides) is a marked increase in CHL applications, — 73 in 2014 a four fold increase over a 10-year period — but not a marked DECREASE in personal or property crimes in the same area, looking at police report stats over the same period. Ergo the more guns = less crime hypothesis is bunk.”
So, let me get this straight, you think that 73 people a year, in a population of 33,000 people is supposed to make the entire place stop being one of the worst neighborhoods in Houston? I never argue that soundbite, as license holders are not there to become police or enforce any of the laws. They simply carry for their personal protection, again, in one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in Texas.
That news story doesn’t even know what a bullet looks like or how a gun fires, they show an entire round (brass and bullet) exiting the barrel. That news story and you are purposefully misleading the viewers on most issues. The students in the course are not approved right then and there. They do need a full mental health and criminal background check (done by both the state and federal records. The police even finding a joint in your pocket will disqualify you for a carry license anywhere), and they are finger printed and have passport pictures taken. That mental and criminal background checks are seriously enforced. (and these out-of-state CHL holders are still counted among CHL convictions in Texas on the DPS website)
1. the DPS stats do not distinguish which of the (21 +) are attending colleges. UH is a mixed bag, age wise.
2. No I do not expect 73 people to take on a neighborhood. However, if the Lottian hypothesis were true that more guns = less crime, I WOULD expect that to be testable and demonstrable thesis and observable in a neighborhood where there has been a quantifiable increase in a legal gun possession in the same area where there is purportedly a high crime rate. Yet there has been no demonstrable DECREASE in the crime rates. Not even a hint of one.
3. This being the case, I would also EXPECT those who cling to this long-ago debunked nonsense to abandon it and not use it as an excuse to claim they need guns to defend them selves since there is demonstrable evidence close at hand to show their guns will likely have no impact in reducing imaginary high crime rates.
4. The neighborhood in question is NOT the one with the highest crime rate in Texas, not even in Houston. And UH is, in fact, not located anywhere near that neighborhood. Where it IS, located, is near a traditionally African American neighborhood that is currently undergoing transition, and marginal gentrification which will ramp up even quicker sooner, with current crime rates expected to decrease even more than they have already in some cases. said rates having almost nothing to do with gun possession but the change in the economic development in the area. Thus, your hysterics don’t count as evidence. Sorry.
5. The NICS has plenty of issues, not least of which is compliance. Its a state-voluntary submission system, not a mandated one. That matters if you’re from out-of-state or are acquiring an out-of-state CHL locally (a’la Golden Coral) to avoid full compliance requirements in a state like Texas with generous reciprocity. This will also matter as other states become ‘permit-less” Constitutional Carry states (1 so far with many more on the way) which will render NICS and fingerprinting illegal. So much for “testing and training.” and the much-lauded background checks. That will all disappear. Ergo the criminal and the law-abiding will have the same Constitutional right to the same repertoire of weaponry. Perhaps instead of John Lott claiming More Guns = Less Crime, he should have written a book entitled, “Be Careful What You Wish For: You May Just Get it.”
1.Why would they distinguish which carriers are in colleges, admin or student or both? They don’t keep numbers of oil plant workers, workers on federal installations, or hospital workers. Why would students be any different?
2 & 3. I do not use that argument so I don’t know why you cling to it. And again you’re confusing the role of the concealed carrier. Concealed carriers go about our lives with a bit more self-defense than the normal person, and that’s about it. We do not police the community we live in nor go moonlighting as vigilantes. You think that 2% of people going about their daily business, trying to mind their own business, is going to change everything? It’s the radically opposite side that is perpetuating the problems.
4. I’m sorry, you misread me. The Houston Chronicle reports that there are two of the 25 most dangerous neighborhoods in the nation are in Houston. You are right that Sunnyside is the most dangerous (7th in nation) in Houston, but coming in at 15th nationwide, and second in Texas, is a neighborhood centered at Dowling and McGowen (just 2-3 blocks north of UH). You have a 1 in 13 chance of become a victim of a crime in a single year there. Yeah…
Oh, and Sunnyside? The 7th most dangerous in the nation, and the most dangerous in Texas? just 2 miles away from UH, which is “no where close” and “not even in Houston” according to you. You have a 1 in 11 chance of being a victim of a crime there.
5. Yes, NICS has issues, one of the main ones being that only 10-20% of denied gun sales lead to any sort of action. There were about 4% that were handled federally in the past few years. There needs to be harsher enforcement of those rules for sure. Though, I can attest for the system, because, when I sold firearms, we had the FBI call, and then come into our store, for a person that tried to buy a firearm. Turned out he was wanted, and the system worked. But yes, NICS does need to be enforced. I don’t know what constitutional carry has to do with this, felons are felons are felons and cannot touch a firearm, regardless of what stance of carry the state obeys. NICS is still used at firearm point of sales, and constitutional carry (not constitutional purchase) states have to conduct a NICS or a state-run+NICS check when selling firearms. Criminals cannot carry in constitutional carry states, I do not know where you are getting these stats from, and no, the federally-mandated NICS checks will not be going out of existence. They’re federal laws, the feds WILL enforce them.
http://www.chron.com/business/real-estate/article/Two-Houston-neighborhoods-called-most-dangerous-4476367.php
Guess I’ll, have to explain it like you’re three-years-old.
1. No one can claim students with CHL are “Law abiding” based on DPS records. They (or any other types of indivual) are not identified in the records.
2. Yes, actually you do, and rather unequivocally. To wit. “So, let me get this straight, you think that 73 people a year, in a population of 33,000 people is supposed to make the entire place stop being one of the worst neighborhoods in Houston?”
3. I wouldn’t take anything the Chron says as unassailable gospel about neighborhoods and their danger level. Several Houston neighborhoods get that BS pinned on them — even the one I live in — but that’s mostly urban myth from people who’ve never lived there, and still cling to a decades-old myth without having the slightest inkling of the redevelopment going on there. same is true of 77004. The same use to be said of Near-town, but over the same period, thanks to TIRZ zone implementation there’s been a serious reversal. I could show you the same process ongoing now in the same 77004 zip code. But the Chron doesn’t like to dig deep. It’s not their style.
4. I would suggest you connect the dots between Texas’ reciprocity and states like Kentucky, Idaho, and Missouri where “permit-less” carry bills are moving rapidly through their statehouses. The MI one is now just awaiting their Gov. signature. Permit-less Carry + Texas reciprocity means , buy-n-go. And Texas will follow fast on their heels. Prosecutors are already beginning to wring their hands over whether its even worth the effort to bring charges against a person caught without a permit for a gun where these laws are getting passed with meteoric speed. If you really don’t understand the implication for criminal opportunism, you truly are hopeless. But it’s the NRA and all these-called “responsible ” gun owners who want these so-called 2nd amendment liberties. So, let’s just see how that works out when the playing field is more level and when those convicted felons have just as much legal right to a gun as everyone else.
Start by insulting my intelligence, typical for you. Back to your normal style.
1. So what? are students going to behave radically different? There is no way to determine how many students have carry licenses, just as there is no way to determine the number or weldors, doctors, veterans, or any other profession of people.
2. I do not argue that. I was trying to clarify what you were trying to determine. I still don’t understand what you were trying to prove if there were 70-some licenses a year in such a large neighborhood.
3. It wasn’t the chron doing the study, it was neighborhoodscout. They had a link directly in their article. They used FBI and local crime data to determine it.
4. You’re wrong. Permit-less carry simply means that anyone NOT BARRED FROM POSSESSING A FIREARM can carry it. No one is giving the right to carry back to felons, and neither are they giving the right to own firearms back to felons. All gun sales will still be subject to NICS background checks, and firearms can only be sold in the state in which the buyer resides.
You’re also wrong because Texas recognizes LICENSES (or permits) from other states. Some permit-less carry states still issue permits. Take Arizona for example; anyone not barred from possessing firearms can carry in Arizona, but they still issue carry permits that are recognized by other states (such as Texas) i.e. You have to have a Arizona carry permit to carry in Texas, but not carry in Arizona.
Vermont has had constitutional carry (and optional seat belts) for years and does not issue a license, therefore, Texas does not honor that, because they honor the permit, not the local state laws. Just the same as when out-of-state people come to our city, they have to abide by our laws, not the laws of the state where they came from. (also, according to Wikipedia, Vermont, the original constitutional carry state, has the lowest gun murder rate in the nation according to the 2010 FBI crime reports).
Why should a state as small as Vermont with a population so small have a murder rate as high as a larger state? Also, if you talk to doctors, and gun violence experts you’ll find that gun shot murders have been reduced, not because of a proliferation of guns aimed at fewer victims but because fewer gunshot victims die thanks to better medical techniques. IOW, the reduced rates are reflection of medical advances, not an increase in gun use.That’s something gun enthusiasts never take into account. They actually belive more guns = equal fewer murders as if murders are the only metric, while conveniently leaving out the number of rising gun shot victims and suicides (now the leading use of guns,) and accidental shootings. There have been over 9,000 incidents of gun violence just since January. This is an unacceptable number by any standard. In short more guns = more gun violence.
Your point 2 is lost on you because you refuse to recognize that your claim is invalidated by actual evidence. And when confronted by your own claim verbatim you deny it.
We’re done here. You don’t even own up to saying a thing even when quoted. The campus carry “self-defense: stance is completely horse crap because, as I’ve demonstrated more guns do not equal less crime. If it did, the crimes rates, in the 77004 zip code area, as I’ve pointed out would have DECREASED with the INCREASE in CHL permits granted. It has not. Period. In fact, if such a mythical hypothesis were true, Harris County, which holds the distinction in Texas as being the county with the largest number of CHL permit carriers, ought to be the safest county in Texas. Therefore there’s no logical reason to think armed students would reduce crime on a college campus, since those crime rates have not gone down in its nearest neighborhood, nor in the county it resides in despite a sharp overall increase in CHL permits. You’d probably argue with a stop sign.
Ah yes, the insults… back to form for you.
You do know how rates work, right? It’s 1 per 100,000 people. Being a big or small state should have nothing to do with that rate.
You lead with that argument, I never brought up anything about more guns=less crime. The quote you keep copying and pasting is my response to your statement.
“What you will find however, if you look at the CHL applications in the 77004 zip code area (where UH resides) is a marked increase in CHL applications, — 73 in 2014 — a four fold increase over a 10-year period — but not a marked DECREASE in personal or property crimes in the same area, looking at police report stats over the same period. Ergo the more guns = less crime hypothesis is bunk.”
You brought up the more guns = less crime. I never mentioned it. I never argued it I questioned it. Again, concealed carry holders are not the police and do not enforce the laws, why would the crime rate decrease?. Concealed carry holders carry for our personal protection and that of our family, and most of the violence in our community is “committed by people with criminal records against people with criminal records.” AKA not my people legally carrying, with licenses to carry.
Hey Old Man … guns on campus … its gonna happen. Guns in the classroom … its gonna happen. UT has already faced the fact … and UH will have to as well.
And you’re not the only one on campus that has served and spilled blood for his Country. And quite simply, we cannot afford to live in your Socialist Utopian world, where that study you cited is welcomed … in North Korea.
You so small to think that a prof will not share his political thoughts because someone might be carrying a gun in class. I don’t think they will, and the SocDem indoctrination will continue. Besides, what SocDem prof wouldn’t want to be martyred away?
You’re argument that UH will turn into the Wild West are unfounded. The same arguments were made when concealed carry was first introduced in Texas, and nothing happened. It’s the UNLICENSED carriers you need to be looking out for, which you never wail against.
Your arguments Old Man … are Chicken Littlish. You fought against communists and now you’ve become one.
***TROLL***
David … If you ever utter a coherent thought … I will be floored.
So instead of just sharing your thoughts you have to resort by starting off with name calling in the beginning and end of your statement…wasn’t worth the read being the bully you are. He is not and never has been a communist. I hope you don’t have children with that mentality.
Welcome to TDC’s message boards Lori, where if you have a dissenting opinion from this lot you’re going to be berated and insulted.
Organite!!! You’re projecting.
I’m not wrong, though.
Organite!!! … how ya enjoying your break?
Let’s get everything straight … Lori Ann obviously lives in a very small World of Socialists if she is associating with Ken; and quite frankly expects all opinions to cower to her intellect.
Sorry … ain’t gonna happen.
Freedom … literally is at stake here.
Calm down, Jones. Freedom is not at stake on TDC’s message boards.
It’s not that anyone is trying to silence you, but you invalidate yourself by prefacing just about everything you say with a baseless insult.
Whether you care to be taken seriously or not, insults and crazy talk drown out whatever of little substance you have to say. Case and point, your most recent response to Lori you say, “If Ken wants to write he has to stand up to the criticism. That’s what free speech is all about.” That’s actually a really good point, but you preface it with Geritol chugging and end with something about Korea, and all I see is your tinfoil hat with a “Make America Great Again” sticker crudely stuck on the front.
Hence why a few people on here have given you the title of Troll.
Oh and I’m getting in mad OT for spring break, but that’s neither here nor there.
Organite!!! What’s the fun in being nice to SocDems.
Now you know good and well, that if these guys were to see an injured to dying Republican on the side of the road, they would gladly hit the accelerator.
Name calling Lori Ann? Old Man? You’re grasping at straws, and its understandable for the Geritol chugging candidates you support.
If Ken wants to write he has to stand up to the criticism. That’s what FREE SPEECH is all about. Until SocDems take all our Guns and Free Speech rights … and we become North Korea.
At least you’ll still have your tin foil hat, Jones.
Why are old people with the least to lose overall so afraid of everything?
Another disjointed diatribe from a comment-section addict who needs medication. If you think gun restrictions are a bad idea, you are probobly one of the people they are intended to protect us against. Babble on….
huh… must have forgotten the students fighting back at UT when the sniper was up on that tower when you were 35 years old.
There are many people that reported that the students on campus came out of the woodwork and shot back at the UT sniper, keeping him from killing a lot more students there, 50 years ago. The police didn’t have long guns and the students helped the police spot and called shots when they finally did show up with the long guns.
But, I digress. Concealed carriers are not here to stop campus shootings. We’re just here so we don’t have to gouge our attackers’ eyes out or poke at them with umbrellas, keys, or weaponize our pens and pencils (like our campus police encourage) in the event of an attack on our lives.
You state there is no single reason that gun ownership exists. I can agree with that. There are simply too many reasons to count that ownership exists.
You state that there have been shootings and stabbings (knives are allowed on campus) without campus carry, but yet, teachers have taught what they feel, but now campus carry comes along and they can’t say anything they feel? Which is it? The means for violence was already there, and the instances of violence were happening, but now they think it’s going to fundamentally change everything?
I never knew we had a constitutional right to education. Please, show me where that is assured.
You’re advocating for removing all licensed concealed carriers from classes because teachers are afraid of them? They have a lower violent crime rate than that of the police, and the teachers fear these licensed carriers? That is logic and reasoning I cannot follow.
Cue the hateful commentary from Alex Colvin and Gun Free UH in 3, 2……
it appears he has removed all of his comments, if not deleted his account totally.
Seems so.
Every GFUH post I’ve replied to says the comment was deleted now.
I look forward to campus carry, but not so much because of a concern at school. However, much like those fellow students who have to park at the edge of campus or in the back reaches of the economy lots, wanting to carry is more about the getting to the school and getting home safely.
For me, my concern for conceal carry is my commute on Metro through 3rd Ward (http://tinyurl.com/3rdWard-3rdWorld) and the solo walk I make to and from the house when off the bus.
This small-scale push back is to be expected. There’s always big noise when carry laws are modified. There are never the predicted gunfights at the OK Coral, nor flowing in the streets. In no time, things go quietly back to normal. For instance, remember all the hoopla about open carry, I’ve yet to see anyone doing it.
Nonetheless, people with CHLs are rarely the problem for any situation, much less involving a gun. Those of us licensed account for less than 1% of ANY convictions in Texas, and that number trends closer to less than less than 1/2% (we are talking all crimes, not just gun crimes).
Thankfully, there are some very influential people watching how UH handles this and standing by to file lawsuits depending on how the geography and access are finally paired up. If any of you saw the Draft Report, it’s a joke. They pretty much have every building on the exclusion list (citing excuses like children, etc.). That won’t fly, and I feel confident those in charge will realize there are people watching over us to ensure the spirit of the law (as intended) is followed.
Signed … an Old Guy (52), veteran (9 years USN) and full-time student with a different view. Be safe out there, practice avoidance and stay out of Condition White and 95% of your problems are solved.
For more info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a0IwOsetLI
or
http://teddytactical.com/SharpenBladeArticle/4_States%20of%20Awareness.htm
did you notice they also excluded those that carried from the golf cart security escorts that our campus security talks up so much?
And almost every place students can eat is also banned. How can students carry on campus if nearly every place on campus where they can get food is banned? I don’t understand how students not having the same access to food is not ‘having the effect of generally prohibiting carry’ on campus
Since you favor CC so much, I’m guessing you don’t mind the idea of a corporate conglomerate known as ALEC dictating your laws and cheating your fellow citizens out of their right to participatory government. The “Campus Personal Protection Act” was crafted by the NRA in 2008 and adopted by ALEC the same year and has been making the rounds and getting enacted in state houses ever since. So you can just ignore that part in the Declaration of Independence that says democratic “governments just powers are derived by consent of the governed” and just replace it with “by the dictates of corporate cabals.” — even though you joined a military to defend that system. In every case, these Campus Carry laws are being introduced by ALEC-incentivized lawmakers — in S.B. 11’s case three of the 18 co-authors were paid in total nearly $200,000. We’ve done the research. And all but one case, (an ALEC-member) the lawmaker was a NRA financial beneficiary. But don’t let the hijacking of your representative democracy bother you. Just go one believing they care about your rights and not their profits nor the tyranny they represent. Whatever helps you sleep at night. Oh yes. lawsuits. Because legal bullying is such a better path to liberty. Authoritarians everywhere salute you.
Yes, guns on campus are going to cause a huge explosion in violence. Just wait.
Yup…any minute now. Just waiting here…just waiting. Here it comes….WHAT WAS THAT? Oh, just a car backfiring…but just you wait…here comes the boom…any moment now…
just like how open carry (and concealed carry originally) was going to cause the streets to run with blood, and then…. nothing new happened… Business just returned to normal and no one really noticed a difference.
Maybe you could go spend some time in emergency rooms and talk to nurses and doctors about gun shot victims and how often they get brought in. The blood is not in the streets, it’s in the janitors pails when they clean up the messes. EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. Over 9,000 cases so far this year.
Oh, you mean these shootings?
http://www.click2houston.com/news/houston-murder-rate-skyrockets-in-early-2015_20151125214501203
“McClelland said the majority of murders in the city are committed by people with criminal records against people with criminal records.” AKA not my people legally carrying, with licenses to carry.
Maybe you could go spend some time in emergency rooms and talk to nurses and doctors about gun shot victims and how often they get brought in. The blood is not in the streets, it’s in the janitors pails when they clean up the messes.
As a parent and wife of students on campus, and cousin to more than one college professor, I think campus carry is a recipe for disaster. Even in light of an incident on campus involving guns (which is now many times more likely to occur), I feel that students are less safe. Untrained shooters taking aim at a moving target in the midst of the masses … not good. Police, now on edge because it is more likely that a weapon will be involved putting them and the public at risk, will be more likely to shoot than before. I just don’t see the upside to this policy. Leave the weapons in the hands of the commissioned police officers and off campus for everybody else.
Here’s another point of view:
http://www.texasobserver.org/guns-on-campus-houston-campus-carry/
Everyone has an opinion that is their own and everyone is entitled to it. Everyone is also entitled to bring whatever feelings, single-issue advocacy funded studies and cherry-picked statistics they want into a discussion. This is true in rational human discourse. It is also true that facts and demonstrable truths are not so personal. At issue is simply denying (or not) the right of a properly licensed person (as stated by others at least 21 years of age and passed a background check) to have a tool concealed on their person that can be used to project force — a concealed handgun — in the specific environment of a public university.
Fact: Licensed concealed carry of a handgun in Texas was enacted in 1995.
Fact: Since then, licensees have proven to be vastly more law-abiding than their unlicensed peers.
Fact: It is against the law to use a firearm to intimidate or harm another person except in very specific circumstances typically amounting to a clear and present existential threat.
Fact: Licensees have been informed of this and other laws — and remain more law-abiding than their peers.
Fact: Violent criminals exhibit criminal behaviors — including ranging into so-called Gun Free Zones with guns to perform violent acts.
Fact: The surest and swiftest way to stop a violent attacker is to return violence to him/her RIGHT NOW, with the tools at hand.
Fact: Tools that can project force further than arms reach are likely more effective against an armed attacker using similar tools.
Fact: The police (if not already engaging the attacker) will bring these same tools later (after at least some damage is done), and you call them because you want them to bring these tools.
I understand that many folks are simply scared of guns and abhor the thought of anyone around them either having or carrying them. The person using the gun to harm others is the problem, though, rather than the gun. Without that person putting his/her will into action by using the tool (gun, knife, axe, chainsaw, car, or whatever else), there would be no fear or heartache.
Virtually all of us (excepting thugs and similar violent criminals) don’t wish harm to anyone except in cases where someone is presently trying to harm us or our loved ones. In such cases, regardless of locale, yielding a monopoly of force options to the attacker is simply stating that the attacker’s life is more important than your (peacable) life. I reject that idea and am therefore pleased that the Texas Legislature and Governer enacted licensed, concealed campus carry.