Senate bill 354, which would allow college students with a concealed handgun license to carry on campus, was temporarily holstered on April 7.
A lack of support put the bill on hold. Senators pointed out the need for amendments to teaching hospitals, high schools near or on colleges, and schools that have almost no students old enough to get a CHL.
The University of Houston, University of Texas and Texas A&M University all are figureheads of this debate, although the bill would affect all college campuses. These three colleges are stark and contrasted however, not only in student population, but demographics, culture, location and, of course, opinion.
There are, however, a few things to consider.
Non-senior college students are typically under 21 years of age, so they are unable to procure a CHL, and therefore unable to carry. UH is a rare exception because the age of our average student is well over 21.
Yet UH has a very large international student population, and such a law won‘t convince them (or any student with a part-time job) to go through the effort of paying the several hundred dollars for the class, fees and a firearm.
Typically, international students leave once they graduate. That alone is enough to dissuade them from carrying, as they won’t be able to take their revolvers home with them.
Last, but not least, is the female student population, who typically accounts for half of the student body. Gun culture is not a female-dominated one.
By all accounts, females are the most targeted demographic for muggings and sexual harassment and would benefit the most from the law. But even with the rise in females getting CHLs, don’t expect the ditzy sorority girl or the reserved and astute liberal arts major to pack heat if the bill passes.
If the bill becomes law, it could possibly help or hurt if a school shooter occurs. But that would require far more students carrying CHLs than there realistically could be expected. Not to mention most colleges and universities have been vocally objecting to the bill in a similar fashion to the “our bodies, our choice” mantra.
So the real question is, why are so many Texas politicians pushing for this gun-rights bill when there is equal opposition, and why do they care about our physical safety when our academic and financial well-being is of seemingly no concern to them?
The sonogram bill, the voter ID bill and the campus gun rights bill all have one thing in common — they are political agendas. They exist for the purpose of legislative legacy.
It is unimportant to politicians that the cuts to spending will hurt more than help. It is irrelevant to them that the sonogram bill won’t stop women from choosing, or that there is no illegal immigration voting epidemic that requires voter ID.
Most of all, it is of no significance to them that college students won’t have many nice possessions to protect after paying spiked tuition rates.
Politicians don’t care because they get to say, “We are the ones who gave students guns. We are the ones who protected unborn children. We are the ones who kept voters safe.”
Those sound bites are worth votes.
As a student who has obtained a concealed handgun license, I am not specifically against the bill to allow students the right to defend themselves. However, there are other issues that are far more important to tackle, especially with Texas politicians such pushing useless and detrimental bills.
Escalation of force is a broad subject that includes, but is far from limited to, the use of lethal force. Use of force starts non-lethal and escalates as necessary to neutralize a threat. Any action you take once hostile actions have been taken against you fall under that umbrella. Your reaction is an escalation even if it's just talking to the hostile subject and trying to get him or her to stop acting like a fool.
Veterans are people just like everyone else. Getting a dishonorable discharge is very near impossible. Getting an OTH (other than honorable) is also near impossible. A general discharge (under honorable conditions) can happen but it's highly probable that the additional paperwork required from the personnel office of the discharging branch will not be done in the mandated time period and the discharge will be elevated to honorable. In short, an honorable discharge means one thing: you didn't rape/murder anyone in your own unit. You could have had your rank reduced several times, stolen, cheated, and even malingered your way through an entire enlistment and still receive an honorable discharge. Kicking bad soldiers out of the military is significantly harder than you think. I know, I tried it. As far as PTSD is concerned all but the most sheltered of humans have it to one degree or another. The stigma attached to mental health is a whole new can of worms.
Do statistics mean it is wise to be ill-prepared to respond to unlikely events? In the twelve years I've been driving I have had exactly one flat tire. Given the number of vehicles I've owned and the number of miles I've driven them the risk of a flat tire is statistically insignificant. That doesn't keep me from carrying the tools required to self-recover either my car or my motorcycle in the event of a non-catastrophic tire failure. Similarly, the probability of being killed by small-arms fire in a combat theater is incredibly rare. Your body army will do precisely nothing to stop an IED from cutting you in half. In essence, the extra sixty pounds of gear serves but one purpose: making members of Congress feel warm and fuzzy that soldiers are protected (while also destroying the spinal columns of those soldiers). Does the improbability of being hit by direct fire warrant leaving the vest behind on a cordon and search? I personally wouldn't advise it. It's hot, heavy, doesn't generally smell all too pleasant, and leads to back problems that will haunt you the rest of your days – but all of that is of a minor level of significance compared to the result of a bullet ripping through you.
Legislators aren't much more concerned with something that probably won't happen. Budget bills are far ahead of this bill in the chute. Far ahead. In fact, this bill will likely die the same way it has died in previous legislative sessions – due to the bills preceding it in either the house or senate taking too long to discuss and the concealed carry on campus legislation being pushed back. Will students continue to be unable to pay for tuition increases which are entirely unfounded? Yes. Does this bill have a single thing to do with that? No.
bah. s/body army/body armor/g;