Many universities are considering allowing students and staff to carry guns on campus, but no one is sure what the impact will be if this is put into practice.
Classrooms have never been the place for guns, nor should they ever be. One of the most dramatic solutions conceived to make campuses safer has been allowing students to carry concealed hand guns. This choice will have a huge impact, as students would now have the authority to protect themselves using deadly force.
According to CBSNews.com, lawmakers in 13 states are considering “campus-carry” bills, with Texas among the states that would allow the open carrying of handguns and concealed carrying of guns on college campuses.
According to NCLS, several states already allow hand guns on campus, including Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah and Wisconsin.
“We should be arming our children with a 21st century education, not arming them with handguns,” said state senator Rodney Ellis (D-Houston). “As the cost of higher education continues to grow, it doesn’t make sense to push more unfunded mandates onto the backs of students and their families.”
The cons of allowing guns on campus outweigh the pros in this particular situation. One of the major cons is that universities would have to put out millions of dollars to accommodate those who chose to carry concealed hand guns on campus.
Between University of Texas and UH systems, the combined cost for carrying hand guns could cost almost $47 million to update their campus security, create places to store guns and add officers to campus police, according to a report by the Houston Chronicle.
Universities would have to cut cost for research and for campus departments in order to fund the carrying of hand guns on campus.
The cost of this decision has a huge impact on the budgets universities. Campuses will have to make room and cut off funding for vital research and projects in order to properly fund students and staff being allowed to carry guns.
Biology sophomore Alexis Woods said she believes it would be “kind of dangerous” to allow concealed carry on college campuses.
“There has been mass shootings on campuses, and to think that would be allowed now is kind of crazy,” Woods said.
“I definitely think they should think long and hard before passing anything like this. This situation is dealing with life or death; you could get shot and die while walking to class. Who’s to say people would know how to handle having guns campus?”
Students should have enough security in place to make sure they never feel like they have to protect themselves. Security guards and officers are on campus to ensure the protection of students, and they would no longer have purpose if students were to have the same power they do.
Colleges already have problems with security. Lawmakers should think of alternative plans besides students and staff having concealed hand guns.
Many of the people who make decisions for students don’t attend college and probably haven’t in decades. It’s unfair for legislatures to have so much control over this situation.
The people who attend and work at the universities should make the decision for gun carrying because we are the ones who will be impacted the most.
There is a time and place for everything; hallways and classrooms are not the place for guns. Allowing guns on campus will be costly, distracting and dangerous.
Opinion columnist Faith Alford is a journalism sophomore and may be reached at [email protected].
I am afraid I will need to disagree with you on this miss Alford. For starters no one is forcing you, or anyone who does not want to, to carry a weapon on campus. The law merely allows persons who have completed the course for a conceal carry permit to bring there personal defense weapon into a campus building. I feel you are a bit misinformed on the subject of conceal carry and guns in general. First on order to get a conceal carry permit you must complete a course mandated by the state of Texas which costs anywhere from $60 to $100 depending on where you take it. You cannot get the permit if you are: a convicted felon, have committed a class B misdemeanor or higher, be a fugitive from justice of a class B misdemeanor or higher, you cannot be chemically dependent, or incapable of executing sound judgment with the respect and storage of a handgun. (the list is actually a lot longer, if I typed the whole thing I would run out of characters). On top of these requirements you must also have your fingerprints taken, run through a criminal database, then stored in a database for owning tour permit. The University would not have to spend money to upgrade its facilities. The University ultimately sets the standards, there is no need for them to spend money on facilities of accommodation. If you do not feel the need to protect yourself then that is your choice, but maybe someone else on the campus does fell the need to protect themselves. They should not be deprived of that right because you or the University fear something you do not completely understand. I will agree that open carry should not be allowed on campus because that weapon will serve as a distraction. But that is the whole point of conceal carry, you don’t know who has a weapon and who doesn’t. By know you probably stopped reading this but if you are still reading go on y’all! I will leave with this last comment. Crime follows the path of least resistance if a criminal does not know who is hiding a gun, than that criminal is less likely to try anything. If you or anyone else who reads this wish to continue this discussion my name is Kevin Hesse, and email is [email protected].
I agree with you Kevin. Miss Faith here seems to believe that research and education are EVEN more important that ones life. So yes Miss Faith, let’s continue to allow having the robbers, attackers, and rapists from the surrounding areas around UH to attack innocent students. You clearly lack experience in this matter and have not come from an area where violence and crime go unanswered. Report after report is sent to us about students being attacked and those are only the ones that have been reported. Do you really think that CHL carriers are the ones doing the mass killings???? The mass killers are carrying firearms on them illegally around the world as we speak regardless of any rule. Please inform yourself before writing such a flawed article. I pray this type of situation never happens to you but should you ever be in a situation where you and your family are in danger with no “authority” or security guard that you speak of in your article to be present, I will bet you the entire world that you’ll be praying for any advantage to protect yourself.
Well stated Kevin. Everyone should (and does actually, according to the US Constitution) have the right to protect themselves as they see fit. If you choose to not to protect yourself, that’s up to you. But if someone else chooses to be able to use force, and has been certified that they know how to do that responsibly, no one else has the moral authority to say they can not.IMHO…
Kevin: The requirements for a CC permit are extremely lax in Texas. Just to purchase a gun requires nothing more than the purchase price and a few minutes clearing a dial-in “background check” — and only in cases where you buy said gun from an NRA certified dealer. One can also buy said gun through the mail or via a “private” sale (a neighbor, for example,) whereby no such background check is required. Once purchased, no range time is required — except in the case where one wants a CC permit. And many “trainers” (they have to be NRA-certified, no coincidence, there, eh?) will tell you of many of their “students” get it wrong. Only a few hours of range “training” is required for the CC permit. None required just to own a gun. Meaning anyone who can clear the FBI database can own a gun. Oh, and that FBI database is itself full of holes with lots of work-around which dealers know about perfectly well and use routinely. So, no the path to gun ownership you describe is not an airtight recipe to personal safety, since it does allow for some mentally unstable person to buy a gun as long as he presents himself rationally at the time of purchase whether to a dealer, via a mail order, or at a private sale out a car trunk. This is also how many criminals acquire guns; buying them privately, not actually by stealing them, as the NRA would have you believe. Your perception is shot full of holes.
While I wholeheartedly disagree with your opinion on a number of factual levels, there is one statement that you made that causes concern.
“Many of the people who make decisions for students don’t attend college and probably haven’t in decades. It’s unfair for legislatures to have so much control over this situation. The people who attend and work at the universities should make the decision for gun carrying because we are the ones that will be impacted the most.”
So the people who have children that attend universities in the state should have no say in the environment in which their children are educated? Should only people aged 18+ and under the age of 30 have a say? I don’t know if there are older students in your journalism classes but I have been in class with many people who are 50+. Should these people and their families have no say in the learning environment? Students, both young and old, have families who rightfully share concerns about the environment in which their families and friends learn.
Plus, I find it absurd that you quote a legislator to bolster your argument and then go on to say that they should really have no say in the matter. What you really meant to say is that legislators should have no input on something that I disagree with.
She fell into the broken window fallacy- What criminal follows the law? In reality, allowing concealed carry has allowed for less crime on campus. If someone goes around shooting people, then there will be others able to shoot them down.
Another thing– why the extra security? Students are protecting themselves, if anything they could ease up a tiny bit on security as students could defend themselves.
Once again, a liberal speaks and doesn’t realize the restrictions in the real budget of colleges and how allowing concealed carry allows students to take their own security into their own hands.
Dalton: If I understand correct, there are students already carrying concealed weapons, and I presume this is not the first year they have done so. Please explain how their carrying has thus far prevented any of the gun-related assaults that have thus far occurred, or how, if that is not the case, how adding more CC carriers will do so in the foreseeable future? IOW, how will what has not worked in the past suddenly become workable in the future?
Current proposed legislation speaks to NOTHING of places to store weapons on campus or adding additional officers. Attempts to circumvent the law by doing so is in fact, a violation of the law.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=84R&Bill=SB11
This is the wet dream of the university presidents that have no knowledge of the facts or statistical data and are frightened of guns. The aforementioned states that have allowed it make no provision for individual universities to do otherwise, and had not had incident. The above opinion piece is nothing more than a regurgitation of anti-gun talking points, funded by the likes of George Soros and Michael Bloomberg.
WE NEED MORE GUNS ON THE SKREETS. FAITH ALFORD STOP TRYING TO PUSH YOR FEMINIST AGENDA ON US.
Do you realize how unintelligent that sentence was? Or are you just that small minded?
zach had it coming
The Texas Senator Rodney Ellis called background-checked, mentally stable, state-licensed, live fire tested, crime free, and properly trained adults over the age of 21 “children”. Don’t be swayed, that’s who we’re talking about, adults over the age of 21 that have been licensed by the state to carry everywhere in Texas except for a few federal buildings, bars, and schools. The same carriers would be present in your church congregation, at the grocery store with you, in movie theaters sitting next to you, and pretty much everywhere else. Why does stepping inside a certain building change everything?
While correct that open carry would be legalized, it would still be illegal in campus buildings. Concealed carry is the only form of carry that would be legal inside the buildings. The way you phrased your sentence is confusing and misleading to the general audience.
According to NCLS, have any of those campuses that already allow handguns had an incident? There had not been a firearm related incident at any of those campuses, which helps to discredit your story more.
UT system estimates several millions in spending while UT Ausitn, the main campus and the second largest in the state, estimates ZERO expenses related to this bill passing. If students want to carry, they have to pony up the money for a safe to store their defensive firearm in (http://www.dailytexanonline.com/2015/02/26/if-passed-campus-carry-could-bring-cost-ut-system-39-million). This should be no different at UH, where the vast majority of students are either too young to carry, or will not bother carrying firearms.
“Students should have enough security in place to make sure they never feel like they have to protect themselves.” I Couldn’t agree more, but in light of recent events, this is not happening. There was a robbery at gun point with a university security guard less than 20 yards away and the police station only 300 yards away. Even if the security guard was closer, there was nothing they could have done. You’re talking about a dream world where crime doesn’t happen, ours is imperfect and you have to take the good with the bad.
“Security guards and officers are on campus to ensure the protection of
students, and they would no longer have purpose if students were to have
the same power they do.” NO. Students will NOT supplement the security force on campus. The campus PD and security will retain their purpose of keeping the campus safe. Just if the criminals get past them and threaten an individual, that individual can effectively defend his or her life instead of letting the thieves do whatever they want until the cops arrive, after which it can be too late if they are even called at all.
As recent events have proven, UH needs more cops regardless of this bill passing or not as the VAST majority of students will continue their life like nothing at all has changed.
Smh, Faith if you’re going to write articles as a “journalist” for The Daily Cougar please do so in a non-biased manner. This article should be disregarded by everyone due to it’s strong slant toward the cons, the majority even blown out of proportion to gain attention, which you have already accomplished in that sense. I don’t ever see you becoming a legitimate “journalist”, if there ever was one. If you want to learn how to write, why don’t you start at step 1 by only putting out the facts BOTH pro and con and let the readers make their minds. Not just cram a bunch of nonsensical material into an article. Then again, I can see that you are only a sophomore so you still have much to learn.
People aren’t going to be allowed to open carry in campus buildings, the law in congress only states that people would be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. It says absolutely nothing about open carry. (Since this was brought up, i should say that it is my personal opinion that open carry should not be allowed on a college campus.) Campus concealed carry and Texas open carry are two completely seperate issues.
I think people should have a right to defend their own life when paying thousands of dollars to learn. How do you think families would feel if all of the money, time, and stress that went into higher education went to waste because some nutjob decided to walk onto a college campus and shoot/stab/baseball bat their child to death? Let alone the given that they just lost their child.
If people want to protect their own lives, then they should be able to do so. It can take seconds to hurt someone when security is minutes away, and police have pistols to protect themselves, not you.
As long as people understand the safety and basically everything they teach in a CHL class and have their permit to carry a concealed weapon, they will know not to fire in a crowded classroom not knowing what is beyond their target, or put anyone else at risk.
And lastly, as many comments have already stated, disallowing people to carry weapons won’t stop someone with ill intent from walking onto campus with a weapon. Be it a pistol, rifle, or even a kitchen knife. I personally wouldn’t want to put my parents through the loss of their child, so i choose to be one of the people who will protect themself.
Another commentary loaded with ignorance against gun ownership, especially of those who lawfully conceal carry in Texas. I am surprised this opinion piece didn’t mention a “wild west” metaphor.
First and foremost, concealed handgun owners are not part of whatever boogie man world you might imagine. We are not perfect, but we are not the problem.
Let’s just deal in some facts for a minute. First of all, according to the DPS, of “all” 50,869 criminal convictions in the Texas in 2013 — 158 were of CHL holders. Yes, I know, those darned 0.3106% are a menace to society, but even so, most of those convictions had nothing to do with firearms.
Please let that sink in for a minute … about a 1/3 of 1% of convicted criminals in Texas are CHL holders (2013). And I would be remiss if I didn’t admit those 158 convictions were giant leap from the 120 of 60,272 in 2012.
When it comes down to it (minimal exceptions) people with a concealed handgun licenses are the kind of people you want to know, be friends with, fall in love with, marry, have children with and/or have as a partner in business.
Why do you ask, let me count the ways. To have a CHL in Texas, it is more than just firearm and mindset training, it’s about character. To get a license here you have to (partial list):
1) 21 years old – that cuts out a lot of the student body.
2) Never had a felony
3) Must be lawfully able to buy a gun
4) Not hooked on drugs
5) Pays their child support on time.
6) Pays their taxes
7) Never beat your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend or husband.
So you see, people who have a CHL license are the kind of people who are the good guys — 99-2/3% of the time.
I assure you I will leap at the ability to carry on campus if it becomes legal. You see it is not about carrying at school that matters, it’s about carrying to and from school. Many of us ride Metro buses to school through the neighborhood surround the main campus or park in parking lots a long walk away from campus. Most crimes do not happen at school, they happen during transit, or the walk through parking lots, etc. Forcing someone to leave their gun in their trunk defeats the purpose.
I say shame on anyone who tries to limit anyone’s legal options to protect themselves.
I should have used more clarity. I am completely for campus carry only in a concealed capacity. I think open carry in society mostly dumb. It is certainly bad defense tactics, although I supposed it could thwart an unarmed person who might use intimidation and fear as their weapon of choice for crime. Otherwise, for most armed assailants it just marks you as the first target when they are ready to make their move.
You see, criminals do have the advantage in that they are busy planning their crime, working through possible scenarios while you may still be Condition Yellow. People who carry should never be in Condition White. Back on point, most of the time, I think open carry is just a bad idea.
I’m a former competition shooter and I can assure you, with the right holster and concealment garment you can access and use a concealed firearm in defense (pretty much) as efficiently as open carry. Part of your safety, and dry-fire training ritual will hone your access skills.
I know I moved around on different topics here, but to recap: Campus Concealed Carry should be approved. The bad guys don’t care about gun laws, so why put limitations on the good guys. Look at my statistics in my previous post. They are real numbers and right off the DPS website. CHL holders are not perfect, but when it comes to committing crimes they are are still better than 99-2/3rds% of the rest of the people who are committing crimes.
Websites of Interest:
Common Arguments Against Campus Carry – With Responses: http://concealedcampus.org/common-arguments/
More on Color Codes by Col. Jeff Cooper: http://www.self-defense-mind-body-spirit.com/awareness.html
DPS CHL Crime Stats: https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2013.pdf
DPS Stats on Who is Applying for Licenses: http://dps.texas.gov/rsd/chl/reports/demographics.htm
There are so many gunpoint robberies on campus. UH has done nothing to stop them. Right now, anyone who is willing to break the law is already carrying weapons on campus. And that’s how the establishment and their mouthpiece “The Daily Cougar” like it. It would be terrible if law abiding students would have the right to protect their own lives on campus. Why would anyone believe that the same authorities who cannot stop students from already having guns pointed in their faces on campus tell us that they will protect us? What an utter failure in logic!
UofH police cannot stop campus crime they are not Gods, they are investigators. They investigate crime not stop crime.
Exactly and being able to carry is a means to self defense and, maybe, the incidence of robberies can be reduced. When seconds count, the police is minutes away.
The idea that a student at any university needs a weapon to protect himself is little more that the hysteria wrought by the NRA in order to help their lobby efforts and their gun manufacturing clients sell deadly products. A few hours at a gun 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 media manipulation. If it were true that guns makes us safer than surely, given the exorbitant amount of guns already in legal possession of those who have them, including private citizens and constabulary combined, by now our culture in general should be a safer place. Yet the fear of the imaginary assailant 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 and why, in fact gun sales have increased. The NRA and their cronies spend millions crafting a message that targets both patriotism and fear in order to create a false hysteria in order 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!” This is exactly what the NRA has done for the gun manufacturers. And it sells millions of guns. Allowing guns on campus is not about safety; its about a slimy marketing pitch that is shot full of holes.
So… We aren’t gonna mention the fact that violent crime rates are like 1/2 of what they are in 1990? Or that concealed carriers regularly protect themselves, their families, or total strangers with their firearms? The Oregon mall shooting a month or so after sandy hook, it was widely reported, and corroborated by several witnesses that a man with a concealed permit confronted the shooter, and the shooter took his own life after being confronted preventing more deaths. This idea pushed by anti carry activists that the streets will run red with innocent blood if people are allowed to carry handguns has been disproven by 20+ years of legal concealed carry in the state of Texas. And this idea of “well trained officers” is a joke in and of itself. HPD only requires their officers qualify once a year with their sidearm, and doesn’t require any specific regimen of firearm training in between. I can’t imagine UH officers have a more stringent training requirement than HPD does. At best a concealed carrier will never have to draw their weapon, and at very worst something on campus happens and someone may be there that can try to do something about it.
Check if UofH PD and get the stats on robberies on campus or just off campus, the areas where commuting students have to cross.
The idea that a student at any university needs a weapon to protect himself is little more that the hysteria wrought 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 it 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 a safer place. Yet the fear of the imaginary assailant (and the mythical “good guy” with a gun who saves the day,) 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 and why, in fact gun sales have skyrocketed. The NRA and their cronies spend millions crafting a message that targets both patriotism and fear in order to create a false hysteria in order 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!” This is exactly what the NRA has done for the gun manufacturers. And it 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 bravery 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.”?
Check it out another armed robbery on campus at U of H.
http://www.khou.com/story/news/crime/2015/04/09/uh-student-reports-armed-robbery-on-campus/25508471/
We need campus carry at UofH, if you park near Scott Street you are a prime victim for thugs. This article is very selfish and paranoid.
The propaganda being spread about the virtues of Campus Carry are being spread by those who have bought into the NRA-sponsored myth that more guns=more safety. This is a marketing paradigm using what I call “Gun Logic” any 1st year marketing student could deconstruct to expose its blatant falsehood. The trick is: you first manufacture a problem and them propose a solution. It also involves circular reasoning. The point of this phoney logic” is to sell guns, not make people safer because if it’s true objective were to make people safer, the increase in gun sales would correspond to a decrease in gun use — legally or otherwise — and therefor a decrease in gun sales. However, the opposite is actually true.
The propaganda being spread about the virtues of Campus Carry are being spread by those who have bought into the NRA-sponsored myth that more guns=more safety. This is a marketing paradigm using what I call “Gun Sales Logic” any 1st year marketing student could deconstruct to expose its blatant falsehood. The trick in many common marketing schemes is: you first manufacture a problem and then propose a solution only your product can provide. Got bad breath? You need Altoids. The scheme also involves appealing to an attractive circular reasoning — not actual logic. The point of this phoney “logic” therefore, is to sell guns, not not improve personal safety. If the true objective of this scheme were to make people safer, the increase in gun sales would correspond to a decrease in gun use — legally or otherwise — and therefore a decrease in gun sales and a safer society overall. However, the opposite is actually true. Statistics of gun sales and an increase in gun use weather through criminal activity or accident or suicide bear this out.
The propaganda being spread about the virtues of Campus Carry are being spread by those who have bought into the NRA-sponsored myth that more guns=more safety. This is a marketing paradigm using what I call “Gun Sales Logic” any 1st year marketing student could deconstruct to expose its blatant falsehood. The trick in many common marketing schemes is: you first manufacture a problem and then propose a solution only your product
can provide. Got bad breath? You need Altoids. The scheme also involves appealing
to an attractive circular reasoning — not actual logic. The point of this phony “logic” therefore, is to sell guns, not improve personal safety. If the true objective of this scheme were to make people safer, the increase in gun sales would correspond to a decrease in gun use — legally or otherwise –and therefore a decrease in gun sales and a safer society overall. However, the opposite is actually true. Statistics of gun sales and an increase in gun use whether through criminal activity or accident or suicide bear this out.
The propaganda being spread about the virtues of Campus
Carry are being spread by those who have bought into the NRA-sponsored myth
that more guns=more safety. This is a marketing paradigm using what I call
“Gun Sales Logic” any 1st year marketing student could deconstruct to
expose its blatant falsehood. The trick in many common marketing schemes is:
you first manufacture a problem and then propose a solution only your product
can provide. Got bad breath? You need Altoids. The scheme also involves appealing
to an attractive circular reasoning — not actual logic. The point of this phony
“logic” therefore, is to sell guns, not improve personal safety. If
the true objective of this scheme were to make people safer, the increase in
gun sales would correspond to a decrease in gun use — legally or otherwise —
and therefore a decrease in gun sales and a safer society overall. However, the
opposite is actually true. Statistics of
gun sales and an increase in gun use whether through criminal activity or accident
or suicide bear this out. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/52b977c686248905ea5b1adc1bccf3a09677e0b057baf1dde9eac1abc70127f2.jpg
The propaganda being spread about the virtues of Campus
Carry are being spread by those who have bought into the NRA-sponsored myth
that more guns=more safety. This is a marketing paradigm using what I call
“Gun Sales Logic” which any first-year marketing student could deconstruct to
expose its blatant falsehood. The trick in many common marketing schemes is:
you first manufacture a problem and then propose a solution only your product
can provide. Got bad breath? You need Altoids. The scheme also involves
appealing to an attractive circular reasoning — not actual logic. The point of
this phony “logic” therefore, is to sell guns, not improve personal
safety. If the true objective of this scheme were to make people safer, the
increase in gun sales would correspond to a decrease in gun use — legally or
otherwise — and therefore a decrease in gun sales and a safer society overall.
However, the opposite is actually true. Statistics of gun sales and an increase
in gun use whether through criminal activity or accident or suicide bear this
out.” Even statistics used by gun advocates — ironically enough — bear out the notion that skyrocketing gun sales are tied directly to perceptions that gun possession makes one safer — itself part of the mindless circular reasoning perpetuating the sales themselves.
I would like to say that Mrs. Alford I do not agree with everything that you stated, but I happen to agree with the main point. Guns should not be allowed by any and every student. In todays society we have many people who will abuse the right of owning a gun by making threats to teachers and other students. If anything give that privileged to the teachers and professors at the campus. Also, if anyone feels so endangered at the campus they are at THEN TRANSFER TO A NEW CAMPUS. If some is bringing trouble to a campus send that person to another campus. Don’t allow people to bring guns into a facility to where there is a high possibility of misfire. I am not against people having guns, I own many. All I am trying to point out is there are better options besides firearms. Let the campus allow pepper spray or even tazers because even though those things can hurt someone it is very unlikely to end someone’s life with them. By using those things during a heist, it give the person being mugged or robbed enough time to get away and find help. I am up for any type of confrontation, please let me know how you feel about it.
This is garbage. The University of Houston is in the middle of third ward, and I get messages every other day about students on campus being robbed while walking to their cars. Have we forgotten about the ARMORED CAR robbery that happened on campus? It happened in broad daylight, while students were walking to class. What about the multiple robberies that have happened at the Quadrangle and Cullen Oaks? If anyone here is subscribed to the UHPD crime alerts they’ll know that this campus is already an unsafe place, there are plenty of people around the university who are just fine bringing guns onto campus and robbing students. There’s nothing stopping a student from bringing a gun onto campus as it stands: if someone is at the point where they’re going to pull a gun out and take people’s lives with it they’re well past caring about the law.
“Students should have enough security in place to make sure they never feel like they have to protect themselves. Security guards and officers are on campus to ensure the protection of students, and they would no longer have purpose if students were to have the same power they do.”
Eehhhh, no, just no. Where is the common sense?