“Campus is not some special area where no crime happens,” Smith said. “If anything, more crime happens. The other side wants to talk about the rape culture and all that. Well, that’s just another argument for having concealed carry on campus.” | Trey Strange/The Cougar
Jake Smith graduated in May with a PhD in economics. While at UH, he followed a Facebook group called the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, UH Chapter, which is administered to support the pro–campus carry crowd.
For the first installment of Bullet Points, a series on campus carry that will come out every Wednesday, Smith sat down with The Cougar this week to talk about why he thinks guns might be a good idea on university grounds.
The Cougar: Why do you believe that guns should be allowed on campus?
“If you want to look at the AR-15 specifically, it’s great for hog hunting, when you need really quick follow-up shots. It’s great for predator or small-game hunting, because it actually doesn’t fire a very powerful round.”
—Jake Smith, economics alumnus
Jake Smith: Being an economist, I kind of see it from a cost-benefit perspective. There really are no costs to allowing people who already have concealed carry permits to carry on campus, but the benefits could be large. I’m not saying they will be large, but they could be — especially in a campus like University of Houston, which is in kind of a rough area, it has kind of a history of violence and assault, and it’s a commuter campus.
On the other side, the perception is that we say that everybody should have guns all the time. You get these arguments that 18-year-old kids are going to be having them in frat parties, in dorms. That’s absolutely not true. What we’re saying is, if you already have a concealed carry license, and you can carry everywhere else in society, then why shouldn’t you be allowed to carry on campus as well?
TC: What is your interpretation of the Second Amendment?
JS: No doubt in my mind, it wasn’t enshrined for hunting. It wasn’t enshrined for sport shooting. It was enshrined for self-defense from individuals as well as from the government, should that ever happen. I don’t want to sound like a nut, but at the time, the British government went around confiscating guns because they knew that there was a revolution that was fomenting and there was a rising tide of anti-imperialism. And so they wanted to confiscate guns.
So when people say you don’t need this or that for hunting or you don’t need to carry a gun around in front of you in society — well, the whole point of the Second Amendment was to protect your right to do that.
TC: Where might you carry your pistol?
JS: A big problem I have is I’ve worked on college campuses for the last 11 years, so I was prohibited from carrying. That’s what a lot of people run into. Otherwise, they carry their pistol everywhere else — when they go to the movie theater, when they go to the grocery store, when they go to the park. But then when they go to work or school, they have to leave it behind. So I carry it sporadically, I’m not as disciplined about it as some other people. Some people it’s every day, like grabbing their wallet or grabbing their cell phone.
TC: Do you think President Barack Obama wants to take your guns away?
JS: No, I think that’s an extreme on the other side, too. I think, certainly, there are a lot of people who would like to see less guns in society and if they could take your guns away, they would try to.
There’s a lot of fear on both sides. There’s fear on the left, with their blown-up idea that it’s going to be the Wild West again. There’s fear on the right — Obama’s trying to take your guns away. I don’t think that’s right.
They definitely would like to limit certain styles of firearms. For me, I’m watchful of it. It’s not going to happen at the federal level, but you always have to be vigilant because there are people out there who would like to take your guns away.
TC: What’s your opinion on the controversial assault rifle, the AR-15?
JS: For me, a firearm, a gun, is just a tool. And you have to have different tools for different jobs. For instance, I have a pistol. It’s a small pistol — doesn’t carry very many rounds — and that’s my carry tool.
I have a big, 32-inch, over-under shotgun. That’s not going to do me very well for self-defense, but it’s great for when I go skeet shooting. An AR-15 is just another one of those tools that can be great for self-defense or hunting.
There’s a great difference between automatic and semi-automatic. Semi-automatic just means with one pull of the trigger, one bullet comes out. Automatic means you hold it down, bullets keep flying out. The standard, right now, the most common weapons out there, are semi-automatic. That’s just where the technology is. So when people say they want to ban semi-automatic weapons, they want to ban like 80, 90 percent of the market, which is completely ridiculous. It really portrays an ignorance of firearms and firearm technology.
If you want to look at the AR-15 specifically, it’s great for hog hunting, when you need really quick follow-up shots. It’s great for predator or small-game hunting, because it actually doesn’t fire a very powerful round.
And my personal belief is that whatever the police have, citizens should be able to have. And that’s kind of where I draw the line. People always try to blow up the argument, saying, “Oh, you want nuclear weapons,” but my line is whatever the police are allowed to have and use against us, we should be allowed to have and use against them if ever something were to happen.
TC: There are a ton of shootings in the United States. How do we solve that issue?
JS: My take is not a very popular one. Again, I’m looking at this from an economist’s perspective. Your probability of dying in a mass shooting event is infinitesimal. It’s not going to happen. From the Congressional Research Service, there are four or five mass shooting events a year that kill about 150 to 200 people. In a country of 350 million people, it’s infinitesimal.
And if you want to live in a free society, if you don’t just want to lock everyone up and only give some people some freedom, there are going to be some risks that are going to run with that.
Again, I look at it as a cost-benefit. If you ban assault weapons, those same people are just going to find other tools. I don’t ever think you can solve it — it’s just a part of life — but if you want to narrow in on it, you’ve got to look at the common thread. What is the common thread? Mental illness. But again, in a country of 350 million people, there are going to be a few people who fall through the cracks.
You can take solace in the fact that your probability of being a victim of one of those events is tiny. I mean, cars kill 100 times as many people as AR-15s. We accept risk in our everyday life. I think the left really focuses in on one kind of risk. Same thing on the right. The right likes to focus in on terrorism of any kind. Again, your probability of dying in a terrorist attack is so infinitesimally small, it doesn’t really justify what they’re trying to do. And I see the same thing on the left. Your probability of dying in a mass shooting event or being killed by an AR-15 is so tiny, it doesn’t really justify what they’re trying to do.
TC: Are you afraid that adding guns to the stress of a college environment is a harmful idea?
JS: College for undergrads and graduates can be extremely stressful. There are tragic stories of people falling into depression and committing suicide.
But the probability that someone already had a CHL, then college made them maniacal or suicidal, and then if somehow they weren’t able to have the gun and that would have prevented them from committing suicide — that probability is so tiny.
TC: Last year, someone in the faculty senate leaked a slide in which the University told faculty members to not “go there,” meaning they should avoid broaching topics that might anger students with guns. How do you feel about this?
JS: I find that embarrassing and ironic. As a member of the graduate community of UH, I’m embarrassed by it because I feel that fear is completely irrational and unfounded, especially when professors are supposed to be the sober, level-headed, rational thinkers they are. When you see a professor expressing those kind of irrational, unfounded fears, it reflects badly on the UH community.
The big argument against campus carry is that it will lead to censorship. It’ll lead professors to be fearful that they can’t broach certain subjects. And here they are, imposing that censorship onto themselves before the law is even passed. So it’s rather ironic, right? Nobody’s forcing you. Nobody’s pointing a gun at you and telling you, “No, you can’t talk about that.” They’re imposing it onto themselves.
While Mr. Smith is considerate and thoughtful in his responses to The Daily Cougar’s question, he’s under informed at best in one key area — the “cost” associated with Campus Carry, which can be summed up with one word — fear.
Mr. Smith says, “There really are no costs to allowing people who already have concealed carry permits to carry on campus, but the benefits could be large.”
The simple fact of the matter is fear distorts reality and stifles creativity. It triggers interpersonal conflict and produces anxiety, which contributes to individual disengagement. Left unchecked, the fear I speak of will indeed paralyze the academic environment far beyond anyone’s biased imagination.
Could we use the same ‘fear’ logic to restrict Muslim immigration?
maybe the same fear logic to ban free speech on campus and in the class room too!
Also, a student would be very unlikely to have a class with someone who has a concealed firearm, I believe the HPD Chief estimated only 900 would carry on campus. 900/42704 is roughly 2%
Tell that to the kids who were just killed by their mom.
How is this related?
because she applied for a CHL and she was denied?
Has nothing to do with campus carry
I thought students who want CC want to be treated like “everybody else”? Aren’t the student CC advocates the ones who keep trying to claim campuses is just like every place else? There are real-world tragedies which make negligent and deliberate gun violence a very real and dangerous issue; those issues will then step onto campus at UH — they have already stepped onto campuses where CC has been mandated.You are not granted a bubble of denial; there will be no magical force field to prevent accidental misfires, grudge shootings, suicides, and negligence injuries. All we’ll have are people experiencing gun violence, and those trying to justify it with asinine excuses.
Great article on the benefits of concealed carry on campus. I have seen so much against it. I was once “afraid” of firearms until I was properly trained and took the steps to obtain my concealed carry license. I would certainly feel much more afraid walking around the University of Houston campus without a means to protect myself. One of the things that people who are not conceal carry permit holders fail to understand is that the law abiding people who take the necessary steps to get a license to carry are concerned with protecting themselves as well as other innocent people. We are not interested in causing others to feel unsafe because we might just pull out our gun because someone disagrees with us. I carry my weapon with me to grocery stores, restaurants, movie theaters, malls, church, gas stations—whenever possible. In fact, I am more likely to grab my gun and leave my cell phone behind because a gun can save my life or someone else’s life. I don’t believe anyone has ever felt threatened or stifled because of my concealed weapon. They don’t know it is there.
I was never afraid of firearms; I am afraid of people wielding them, though. If you feel unsafe walking on campus or around it, this is mostly due to your own lack of understanding about criminal behavior.
>We are not interested in causing others to feel unsafe
But this is exactly what you want. To intimidate others. Otherwise, you are looking to inflict bodily harm with a gun and the word for that is not ‘law abiding’ it is ‘psychopathic.’ I refuse to have a conversation with a person carrying a gun. Full stop. I have no reason to believe you won’t shoot me the moment you desire to. And that’s exactly what you’re promising to do, actually – shoot someone who you feel threatened by. I’m sorry, I don’t trust you. It’s as simple as that. Just as I don’t put my money in a box by the side of the road, I don’t put my life in your mentally unbalanced hands.
So…you wouldnt talk to a cop, even to report a crime? And you think that CHL holders want to intimidate you? Sounds like you dont know anything about criminal behavior.
>So…you wouldnt talk to a cop, even to report a crime?
I am afraid of heights, but I have climbed mountains. I’m afraid of dying in a car crash, but I drive almost every day. See how this works?
>And you think that CHL holders want to intimidate you?
That’s one stated purpose for carrying a firearm, yes. Intimidation. Pretty much the only one, actually. “Protect myself from a tyrannical government.” Either you’re saying you’re going to shoot government officials, or you’re saying you want to intimidate them into not threatening you. Using violence to intimidate others (or the threat of violence) is despicable.
Nonsense. So you would talk to someone with a firearm per your statement. Intimidation? I dont plan on my house flooding, yet i buy flood insurance. I dont plan on someome threatening my life or my families lives, yet i have the insurance via a concealed firearm. I dont want to intimidate anyone, thats why my firearm is concealed.
>I dont plan on my house flooding, yet i buy flood insurance.
What part of flood insurance involves the use of violence?
>I dont plan on someome threatening my life or my families lives, yet i have the insurance via a concealed firearm.
I don’t think you understand what insurance is. Insurance is joining a pool (group) of people who share risk by paying a small amount. Paying taxes for the police – THAT is insurance. Having a gun yourself is the opposite of insurance.
>I dont want to intimidate anyone, thats why my firearm is concealed.
OK, so a criminal shows up and you will never draw your firearm under any circumstances? Then what point is having the gun? The reason you have the gun is either because you plan on committing an act of violence (even in self-defense) in some rare situation, or because you place on trying to intimidate someone with the threat of violence in some rare situation. I’m not trying to make you out to be a bad buy here, but it needs to be absolutely clear that intimidation is intrinsically linked with carrying a firearm. The reason you carry it is because you either INTEND to shoot someone, or you want people to THINK you intend to shoot someone (caps are not intended to be shouting but emphasis). Either way, this is intimidation. “Good guy intimidation” that is purely focused on reducing crime, sure. Fine. But STILL – intimidation.
When the police point their gun at a suspect, it’s to intimidate them into not provoking the police into shooting them (eg running at them or drawing their own weapon). The intent in pulling the gun is to change the suspects behavior – how? By intimidating them.
You aren’t “intimidating” the flood by buying flood insurance – the flood is going to come, that’s why you buy the insurance. If a gun didn’t hypothetical ‘prevent’ crime, there would be no reason for you to carry it.
You can try all you want. Your whole logic is flawed RG.
The point of insurance is to offer some form of protection against unseen future events, a concealed weapon is to protect yourself against an unseen life threatening future event. Do you think a firearm in the home is meant to intimidate guests? You’re trying to paint a bad picture of people who have CHLs by saying we want to intimidate you. We are taught to only draw our weapon if we have to use it, not to intimidate. Its funny, you equate having a concealed firearm to pre-meditated murder. I love your passion, please, hurl your insults freely, i will retort with more logic.
>The point of insurance is to offer some form of protection against unseen future events,
No, the point of insurance is to spread the risk of loss amongst a large group. What you’re talking about is a sales pitch, but the function of insurance is loss sharing – not “protection.” Insurance forces you to pay no matter what, so there is no ‘protection’ just amelioration.
>a concealed weapon is to protect yourself against an unseen life threatening future event.
OK, but how does it protect you? Either by inflicting violence on another person (so you’re a psychopath who wants to harm others) or by putting you in a position to intimidate them (so you’re looking to intimidate others with the use of deadly force). If you’re not willing to negotiate before firing you belong in a mental hospital or prison for being unreasonable. If you are, then you are negotiating with the threat of force – something I don’t think individuals should be entitled to do.
>ou’re trying to paint a bad picture of people who have CHLs by saying we want to intimidate you.
I’m not “painting” anything – I’m just telling you like it is. You don’t *have* to concealed carry, but there’s only two possible reason to strap a deadly weapon to your hip – to use it, or to use the threat of it. Either of these is disgusting. If you don’t think they’re disgusting, that’s cool (you’re a psychopath), and you can make that case – but you can’t tell me that you are carrying a deadly weapon for any reason other than those two. Are you planning to use it to pick your teeth?
>Its funny, you equate having a concealed firearm to pre-meditated murder.
Pre-meditated murder is a legal standard, so no, not being a lawyer I am not doing that. I am saying what I have said over and over again: the purpose of a gun is to do violence, or threaten to do violence.
You need to get comfortable with this fact, because that’s the position you are arguing from. The reason it makes you uncomfortable is because you haven’t conceived of it in those terms yet, and it shows you a perspective you haven’t considered before. That discomfort is very similar to the discomfort the rest of us feel knowing that there are people walking around with deadly weapons and zero training on the correct way to use deadly force to resolve a dangerous situation.
Lmao, your talking about the mechanism of insurance, im talking about the idea behind insurance.
So im a pyschopath if i shoot someone who points a gun at me and threatens my life if i dont meet his demands. Silly.
Heres a question: do i have the right to defend my self?
>Lmao, your talking about the mechanism of insurance, im talking about the idea behind insurance.
No, you’re talking about a sales pitch. That’s not what insurance “is” that’s how you choose to conceive of it.
>So im a pyschopath if i shoot someone who points a gun at me and threatens my life if i dont meet his demands. Silly.
No, you’re a psychopath if you walk around with the intent of shooting someone. I don’t care *why* you intend on shooting someone, just the fact of mentally forming this intent is psychopathic.
>Heres a question: do i have the right to defend my self?
I don’t see what this has to do with campus carry. Do you have a right to carry a gun in a courtroom? In a jailhouse? In a maternity ward?
So ur still calling me a physchopath for preparing for the worst and hoping for the best, so i guess cops are physcopaths too. No u cannot have a gun in a courtroom or a jailhouse seeing as you cant have a gun in a govt building. Any private building can prevent me from carrying there by posting a 30.06 sign. The entire point of campus carry is to give people the means to defend themselves.
>So ur still calling me a physchopath for preparing for the worst and hoping for the best,
Preparing for the worst is wearing a bulletproof vest. What you are hoping for, by carrying a gun, is the chance to shoot someone or the chance to threaten to shoot someone. Either way, that’s insane.
>Any private building can prevent me from carrying there by posting a 30.06 sign.
Speaking of burdensome government regulation, the only way I can legally prevent you from carrying a gun in my home/business is by posted a sign with at least 1″ tall letters in high contrast print, at every single entrance to the establishment, using exactly the wording government specifies. But regulating CO2? No way.
>The entire point of campus carry is to give people the means to defend themselves.
No, it’s not. It’s to give people the ability to inflict deadly wounds on other people. Criminals? Maybe. Who knows? But the purpose is not ‘self defense’ there are a thousand different ways to defend yourself that don’t involve guns. It’s about using deadly force, or threatening to do so. Don’t pretend like you don’t fantasize about a gunman coming to campus one day, and heroic rick gets to put a few bullets into him and gets medal from the chief of police. You want to kill. That’s why you carry.
Youre obviousely a troll or a rabid liberal. Im not getting a bullet proof vest, what about your head? Lawfully concealed weapons have saved so many lives, but thats pyschotic right? Know one except your feminist dance therapy classmates take your argument seriousely.
>Youre obviousely a troll or a rabid liberal. Im not getting a bullet proof vest, what about your head?
Rick, it’s not me that’s creating this hypothesis. You created a logical quandry for yourself by stating that you want to carry guns for self-defense. This literally means you either plan for a situation in which you will have to kill a human being, or you plan for a situation in which you will threaten to kill a human being. It’s not something I’m making up for ostracize you, it’s a logical consequence of your argument. You need to either embrace it, or come up with a new argument.
>Lawfully concealed weapons have saved so many lives, but thats pyschotic right?
Lawfully concealed weapons have murdered far more people than they have failed to kill with stray bullets.
>Know one except your feminist dance therapy classmates take your argument seriousely.
I think this sentence pretty much serves as its own rebuttal.
Finally, you use the right lingo, i agree that i plan for the situation which i may have to kill someone to defend myself or family, but your claiming that this is psychopathic, which is rediculous. What is the logical pathway that ends up at psychotic? Show me the stats that back up the claim that lawfully concealed firearms have killed more than they save. I will continue to lawfully conceal carry and i will take comfort in knowing that i will have a line of defense against people who would seek to harm me or my family. Just know that everytime you go out in public, you encounter ppl like me everyday, to call us psychopaths is childish.
What’s the word for someone who wants to commit premeditated act of violence? You may not think this is pyschopathy, but the psychiatrists do.
>Just know that everytime you go out in public, you encounter ppl like me everyday, to call us psychopaths is childish.
Well, to be fair, I’m not calling you a psychopath medicine is. I’m continually amazed by how cavalier you are about this. “I’m going to kill someone today if I can” – that’s how you think everyday. You’re not a fireman or a policeman, and even if you were, a fireman doesn’t carry his coat and boots with him everywhere he goes. A policeman doesn’t relish the idea of shooting a perp (we hope). And yet you, with zero training in combat situations and effectively zero ongoing training in marksmanship, you are the agent of justice. Not a judge, not a jury, not an elected official. One vigilante, walking around, looking for a person to murder every day.
Sounds like a psychopath to me.
Your painting me as an untrained, vigilante whos looking for a person to murder someone everyday. Ive been carrying nearly everyday for 5 years, no problems yet, never came close. Also, i spent 5 years in the Marine Corps. So ill shut down your little ‘zero training’ comment.
> I’m continually amazed by how cavalier you are about this. “I’m going to kill someone today if I can” – that’s how you think everyday.
Wow, how completely idiotic. Lets rephrase that, “i’m going to kill someone today if i HAVE to.” I will stand by that.
So i guess i should destroy me shotgun in my closet, because its psychotic to be able to defend your home right? The same logic applies in saying ‘im going to kill the mailman today if i can’.
Lol, which part is flawed. Lets hear your own opinion.
No one wants to intimidate. The only carry that is allowed is concealed carry; open carry is still illegal. If you expose your gun to intimidate that is, by the law, brandishing and you will be expelled and the full force of the law thrown at you.
>No one wants to intimidate.
Yes they do. Either they are carrying a gun specifically to inflict violence, or they are carrying a gun to serve as a deterrent. The reason concealed carry exists is to serve as a trojan horse to allow gun fanatics to carry guns without upsetting more rational people who would reasonably object to the open carriage of a gun. Look how ostracized the long-gun open carriers are to understand what I’m talking about.
>open carry is still illegal.
So you’re trying to intimidate, you’re just doing it on the down-low.
>If you expose your gun to intimidate that is, by the law, brandishing and you will be expelled and the full force of the law thrown at you.
Brandishing is not the only form of intimidation by firearm. Either carrying a handgun is a preventative measure, or concealed carriers are murderous psychopaths looking to use their firearms to kill other humans. You can’t have it both ways.
>There really are no costs to allowing people who already have concealed carry permits to carry on campus,
I’m surprised such a poor economist was admitted to UH.
There are costs to concealed carry on campus, starting with: the presence of a firearm increases the risk that a homicide or suicide will take place *dramatically.* I’m not speaking in spooky gun-control terms – the simple fact of the matter is that the presence of a firearm increases the risk of gun violence. It’s a statistical fact, which Smith ignores to his arguments’ peril.
Further, there is the chilling effect that the threat of deadly force has on discourse and the academic process. Imagine you are having a heated discussion with someone over a topic. Now imagine that person has a gun. Are you going to behave the same way in both circumstances?
And that fundamentally is what campus carry (and all those who want to carry guns) are ultimately interested in – intimidation and power. They want to instill fear in others, and quite aside from being despicable in a modern world full of grownups, it is antithetical to the academic process.
This line of reasoning is so poorly thought out that it leads readers to question how Mr. Smith passed his defense. So much for academic standards.
The only people i could see using their concealed firearm out of passion, in the classroom, is a rabid liberal SJW. This is evident from the astounding amount of violence they show towards people who disagree with them on campuses.
You demonstrate the failing of most gun rights advocates: you confuse your own limited worldview with reality. Just because you don’t have a depth of experience and knowledge does not mean that the world actually is the way that you perceive it.
For example: there are literally countless examples of pro-gun individuals committing homicides.
Yet you take the opportunity to vent your angst at two *very* tenuously connected ‘movements’ (if the slur “SJW” can be said to refer to a movement) so that you can…what?
The suggestion that somehow because one person became violent that an entire movement is violent is ludicrous. Most human beings are not violent and never will be, but ALL human beings have the capacity to become violent, and inevitably some will – regardless of their ideology. And that’s the fundamental problem with the pro-gun crowd. They either lack the knowledge of psychology and sociology to admit this, or because this simple fact contradicts their dogmatic belief in ideology they reject it like a toddler spitting out ground peas.
Eat your peas, Rick.
I havent seem any pro gun mobs shoving and intimidating students. You do see SJW mobs doing this to students trying to attend a speech on campuses, such as Ben Shapiro’s speech.
If the presence of guns increases risks of gun violence, wouldnt gun shows and the military be loaded with gun violence between piers? And you think we want to intimidate you? We dont give two short and curlys about you, we care about our lives.
Funny, how many of the Open Carrying members of the peaceful BLM march in Dallas ran for their lives when the shooting by a lone gunman began picking off armed, professional police? How many professionally trained officers died and were wounded before they stopped him. And you have the insanity to think you will some kind of hero on campus? I bet Micah Johnson would agree that everyone should be armed,too — especially guys like him with no criminal record, an itchy trigger finger, and a score to settle.
Immediate costs, in addition to those mentioned by others, include the expense incurred by the institution to install, maintain, and staff the “secure storage areas” and provide screening for the exclusion zones.
MAPP 07.01.05 Campus Carry Policy
Section 3, Part E
“Secure Storage Area: An area designated by the University for storage of handguns belonging to the faculty, staff, students, and visitors of the University community. It must be operated by armed University of Houston Department of Public Safety (UHDPS) personnel and accessible to handgun owners twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.”
I would imagine that our police and security will need additional and ongoing training to better discern and interact with those lawfully carrying their weapon.
UHPD does not exist in a vacuum, they have to deal with the ordinary, everyday citizenry all the time, and part of that has been concealed carriers. While they’ve been barred from buildings, they’ve always been able to legally take a stroll through campus or leave their firearms in their cars while they go to class.
True. In light of recent national events, it is clear that all police will benefit from additional and ongoing training when serving our lawfully carrying citizens, which will now include an increased number on campus that are not just taking a stroll. That Minnesota policeman was clearly distraught by what he did, and the impact on the family and nation will not be forgotten.
My comment about cost was to address the guest columnists assertion that “There really are no costs to allowing people who already have concealed carry permits to carry on campus…,” which, according to the policy, cannot be true, regardless of who decided that the gun lockers and police supervision must exist.
A rational exchange? Wow! And yes, I agree with you that additional training never hurts. That Minnesota incident really did hit home with the whole community.
Yes, you are correct that it will cost UH a good bit of money, but that was because the university established an action plan that they felt balanced costs and benefits.
However, there is standing for the argument that it doesn’t have to cost near as much as UH is making it. For example UTA, a prominent school, is doing the minimum gun-free zones (just metal health clinics, daycares, and where already prohibited by state law) allowed. Also, they are not allowing it in dorms or offering any storage areas (as students’ cars are good enough), thereby cutting the costs as well.
So many fearful people with NO understanding of what it means to carry a weapon. Those who do understand what a grave responsibility it is. The so-called people who you have no problem with, ie the law enforcement folks have the resources of whatever agency or governmental entity they belong to backing them. Those who have a LTC must bear the burden themselves if there is an incident, up to and including sole of job, loss of income, or loss of their freedom.
This guy doesn’t know anything. He is spouting his opinion as fact. He has no clue to the history of the 2nd. How does this non fact keep getting printed? As a journalist for the Daily Cougar you should know something about what you are trying to research so when someone spews their non facts you can hold them accountable rather then just printing their garbage.
please, tell us about the real history of the second amendment.
This gun sickness is spreading. It’s killing us all. Not sure why we let these gun nuts have a platform really. They just repeat the same stupid talking points no matter how many people die from gun violence.
No costs? Just since last July when Abbott signed CC into law, Texas has lost 5 scholars — two from UH alone as a direct consequence of CC. The “costs” are to the scholarship which the students will be cheated of (but still forced to pay for,) thanks to CC. Costs are also definable and quantifiable as the “chilling effect” which is the sum total that CC is having on academic freedom, including but not limited to, the manner in which some UH instructors are now modifying or planning to modify their syllabi so as not to allow their classes to become *too* intense lest their be an antagonized gun-toting student. No cost? A restraint upon academic freedom with arms is a constraint upon the intellectual nourishment institutions such as UH exist to provide, and in so doing, anything such as firearms which perverts that mission corrupts it from being a bastion of higher learning. Smith is little more than a pseudo-intellectual channeling John Lott — another rogue economist who thinks everyone should be armed. He is way out of his depth.