Opinion

Guest column: Campus carry is a necessity

One of the most polarizing topics on any university campus is the debate over guns. People who are outwardly averse to such legislation tend to persuade others with cherry-picked data, studies sponsored by anti-gun groups and good old fashioned fear mongering.

The purpose of SB11, known as Campus Carry, is to prevent deadly personal attacks or mass shooting incidents on campus or other university-related property. How many campus crime alerts must we endure before people realize that this is a necessity?

Having a CHL myself, I can tell you that they do not simply let anyone who can sit through a 10 hour (at the time) course brandish a firearm on their hip in hopes of finding trouble and saving the day. The purpose of a concealed handgun license is to give a person the chance to defend themselves and/or others against a deadly attack should all other means of avoiding said attack fail.

Each potential CHL holder must pass background checks, submit fingerprints, pass a written state exam and display proficiency with their personal firearm in front of an instructor. When I carry, I most certainly do not flash my sidearm to intimidate or hope that a fire fight breaks out at the O.K. Corral; doing so comes with a class A misdemeanor, third degree felony, or worse, depending on the circumstances. I also never forget I have it on my person nor the responsibility that being a CHL holder demands.

Most of the fears that surround SB11, and guns in general, center around disinformation and a lack of education on firearms themselves. According to 2013 Texas DPS conviction report, concealed handgun owners are convicted in 0.3106 percent of all violent crimes in Texas. There is a direct inverse relationship to the murder rate versus the number of concealed carry permits.

This past July, the Washington Times reported, “Since 2007, the number of concealed handgun permits has soared from 4.6 million to over 12.8 million, and murder rates have fallen from 5.6 killings per 100,000 people to just 4.2, about a 25 percent drop.” There is ample statistical data proving that where there are CHL holders, there is less crime. Turns out, criminals don’t like being shot.

Who knew?

My CHL instructor warned the class that each bullet fired in a justified shooting situation will come with approximately $20,000 in legal defense fees. Clearly anecdotal, yet even though the shooting may be deemed “justified,” there is still a heavy price to pay in either proving the shooting was warranted or in civil courts; should the family of the person you shot sue you personally for their loss and other punitive damages. Acting upon an active shooter or other life threatening situation is not entered into lightly; it comes with great responsibility.

My hope is that the University keeps an open mind regarding “safe zones” and student discipline should a violent act occur on campus or at a school sponsored event. If the punishment is too severe to warrant using a firearm to stop an incident, the law is, in essence, useless, as seen at Umpqua Community College.

There is no denying that Campus Carry will make some uneasy, be it from a lack of education on the subject or cultural upbringing, but be assured fellow students, CHL holders are on your side, regardless of political beliefs or cultural differences.

Kris Hoffman is an engineering junior.

81 Comments

  • The argument that CHL holders are on your side falls very short especially since it would require that schools now need to have set up and have in place some sort of screening process to make sure that those who are carrying weapons are doing so legally. The schools must be able to act quickly if someone pretends to have a CHL but really doesn’t. Therefore putting unnecessary and unreasonable responsibility where it should not be and increasing the costs for all students.. Police already have weapons and they are on the public side for safety and yet we do see highly trained and highly experienced police who harm innocent people in a stressed situation. There is no confidence that anyone just because they have a CHL will be more prepared or more accurate or more trained than police. Finally, the gun laws are filled with loopholes and there is also no confidence that every CHL holder actually should have a gun or has been trained properly.

    • Linda … the state has already vetted campus CHL holders. Your arguments fall way short of common sense, and your reliance on an instant response of campus police is quite simply … naive. The Umpqua police, word has it, didn’t even carry weapons at the time. And if you are in a classroom where a shooter enters, which I hope never happens, but if it does, you’d better hope a CHL is a student in the seat next to you. Trained or not, your chances of survival are increased.

      • Fear, fear, fear they are coming for you and you better be prepared.

        The fact is having guns in dorms etc makes you 4 times more likely to be shot by accident than you would need it for self defense.

        • David … do society a favor … and quit polluting the UH environment … with your carbon dioxide exhalations. Since you are a scaredy-cat, you are better off under the shelter of Mommy and Daddy taking online courses.

      • Per the regulations: ” It is the sole responsibility of each individual to determine if they are ELIGIBLE to receive a Texas Concealed Handgun License. Each individual must verify there own eligibility status….” That is certainly a very rigorous vetting process to overcome. I am sure everyone can feel safe with taking everyone’s word for it that they are qualified and meet all the requirements. Yep……no problems there………..

        • Christ girl … you won’t quit … and cannot comprehend regulation … you will make an excellent SocDem worker.

        • Yes, because as we all know, all those straw purchases are made only by those without licences, right? Wrong. You have to have a licence or a clean record to buy a gun for someone without either. That’s how straw purchases work. And any law official will tell you that’s how the majority of criminals get their guns — from those wonderful otherwise “law abiding” licensed gun owners. Not from theft, not from drug cartels. But from straw purchases.

          • “And any law official will tell you that’s how the majority of criminals get their guns — from those wonderful otherwise “law abiding” licensed gun owners.”

            Once again, you are demonstrating your total lack of knowledge of something you “feel” so strongly against. You guys are now just making stuff up.

            What “licensed gun owners” are you talking about?? I don’t think you know.. Concealed handgun licensees (CHL)?? That is so false and demonstrates the blatant lies your group will stoop to. What’s next, that CHL holders eat baby puppies for breakfast???**

            How can someone be “law abiding” when they break the law?? It’s against federal and state law to purchase and/or transfer a firearm for/to someone who is unable (legally) to posses a firearm, PERIOD. Criminals don’t care about the law, otherwise they wouldn’t be called “criminals.” As such, they also don’t care about the current law prohibiting firearms on campus. Yet that law somehow makes you “feel” so much safer….

            Once again, GFUH/A.C., has demonstrated their total lack of knowledge of what they “feel” so strongly against. If not ignorance, then they are deliberately attempting to mislead you. Both are shameful.

            **You do not have my permission to perpetuate my made up fact that CHL’s eat baby puppies, or any baby animals, for breakfast.

            • The gun owners are the ones doing the providing to the criminals. That makes them equally criminal. You’re obviously haven’t trouble with that. If you include every gun owner who ever broke any kind of law — none of them would be law abiding. What part of that do you not get? There is no such thing as a “law-abiding” gun owner once you factor is every kind of law there is and whether X gun owner has ever broken it — including running stop signs, spitting on a sidewalk, etc. Your “law-abiding” trope is a joke. You think there’s some magic force field of morality around some gun owners as if they’re a special class entitled to special entitlement and consideration? Meanwhile your completely ignoring the fact that it’s the “legal” gun owners who are, by and large, directly responsible for the vast majority of straw purchase transactions. As a gun-owning class, that makes them accessories to one of the greatest illegal gun operations in this country and responsible for more gun-related crime than any other gun-owning class. Live with it. .

              • You still haven’t answered my question, what “licensed gun owners,” were you talking about? You don’t know.

                Also, please explain why you think in your original post that the “majority” of criminals get their guns from straw purchases? Do you even know what a straw purchase is? Before you answer, please review the link from the DOJ below.
                http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

              • So, to paraphrase your comment above, you believe “legal gun owners” (>100 million in the U.S.), as a class (??), are “accessories” to the “greatest” illegal gun operations in our country? And “legal gun owners,” as a class (??), are responsible for more gun related crime than any other gun-owning class??

                WTF are you talking about!! My God, how can people take your group seriously??

                I wonder what your token “gun-owner” member, and commentator, thinks about being an accessory to the “greatest” illegal gun operation in our country, and is responsible for gun related crime?

                After reading your comments on the Daily Coog, please be honest with the public and change your groups name from “Gun Free UH” to “Gun Free America.” That’s what you really believe.

              • “Until gun owners, as a whole, begin to speak out loudly and clearly in support of strict gun laws,”

                There already is an enormous amount of gun laws, and I support enforcement of all of them. Why don’t YOU learn a few of them before demanding more.
                For example:

                It’s illegal to purchase a firearm for someone unable (legally) to own one.

                It’s illegal to transfer a firearm to someone unable (legally) to own one.

                It’s illegal for someone unable (legally) to possess a firearm to possess one.

                It’s illegal to commit a crime with a firearm.

                That’s four federal AND state felonies, and I could list plenty more, related to your straw purchase argument How many more laws do you want? A law banning firearms? (be honest) If so, do you think a criminal, after not giving a dang about the above four laws, will care about your firearms ban?

                • Oh you mean those non-existent laws like the ones preventing private sale of firearms to criminals, straw purchases , or preventing criminals from buying ammo on the internet or straw purchases? Or how about those nice loopholes that prevent any kind of mental health inquiry about a gun purchaser. Yes, those are such wonderful laws. You have to be rather irrational to think the gun laws in this country can even remotely prevent someone from very easily buying a gun and using it illegally. But the reality is, people like you don’t want tough gun laws; you want the criminals to get the guns. That’s why you fight tough restrictions. Until you fight for tougher laws, you are an accessory to every needless murder. So go ahead any continue to defend the Swiss-cheese that is our current gun law status. It’s not working. Please keep defending it.

                  • Please, if you want your group to have any credibility, please know the current gun laws (federal and state) before you claim they don’t exist. I’ve linked them below as a service to your group. If you “feel” they are not being enforced then please take it up with those responsible for enforcing them, not gun owners.

                    Your group also loses credibility when you label an entire group of law-abiding citizens (>100 million gun owners) as wanting criminals to obtain guns and accessories to murder. That’s simply absurd.

                    Links:

                    Federal laws relating to firearms are spread throughout the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and U.S. Code. It would take months to find each one (e.g. even the EPA in Title 40 CFR regulates firearms). Here’s a link to the BATFE laws, the ones you misstate so often.

                    https://www.atf.gov/file/58686/download

                    The state of Texas also has laws regulating firearms spread throughout its statutes. More than 14 of the 31 codes have laws relating to firearms. At a minimum, please read Title 10, Ch. 46, of the Penal Code (Weapons).

                    http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/?link=PE

                    • Our group has tons of credibility. Not amongst people like you, of course not. But a great deal of our members are accomplished scholars in their fields. Do you think it matters to them one iota if some anti-intellectual mental case on a comment section cares if they have his respect? That’s laughable. We have the brains and the evidence; all you’ve got is the stale pejoratives of a malcontent. You’re outmatched in every way possible way. Your pseudo-intellectual nonsense is standard fare for your ilk; it is based on the very narcissistic notion that only your “rights” matter with no consideration for the common welfare of the greater community. That’s is a very base view. not an enlightened one in a modern, civilized society. you’re is the law of the jungle; survival mentality. Go find a war zone to fight in. that’s the only place that kind of thinking makes sense.

        • Linda, you missed the part about FBI background check and fingerprinting. I would consider the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the state of Texas vetting your background (and your fingerprints) pretty dang “rigorous.” Yes?

          • The NCIS is a joke. Its relies on data voluntarily submitted by states to the FBi crime database. not all states comply fully. Few states — thanks to HIPPA laws — will submit mental diagnosis information, and if these so called laws are so great, why is the NRA constantly trying to loosen them? EX; keeping doctor from asking any patient if they own a gun? A question which could save a life, if the doctor suspects or knows the person has a mental illness history? Why would anyone one in his right mind oppose measures that could save lives against gun violence?

      • There was a CHL carrier on campus as Upaqua. He stayed away, fearful he’s be mistaken for the shooter.. Robert S. Flores used his CHL permit to gun down his professors in class in front of his peers. What you better hope is the next unbalanced student with a CHL permit at UH in a classroom doesn’t go berserk like Florez did — or like any of legal “law abiding” gun owners did — all of whom were students or faculty at the campuses where they killed their peers and colleagues since 1966. But how will you know? no one is allow to ask. You also better hope that some Open Carry guy isn’t on a public sidewalk with his AR 15 anywhere near UH campus — where lots of public streets run through campus — like the guy in the Colorado Springs shooting who gunned down three innocent people because Colorado is now a glorious Open Carry state. Open Carry starts in Texas January 1st. Happy New Year.

        • Look, GunFree Wimp … the CHL holders life was not directly threatened. Now if he were in the class gunned down he would have used his weapon in defense. And the Flores argument is like the difference between traveling in a plane vs a car. Besides, even if Flores didn’t have a CHL, the same outcome would have been the same.

  • Uh-huh. So it’s only the anti-gun people that fear monger? But let’s put that aside for a minute and ask some questions about your ability to protect yourself and others: do you have military experience? how often do you fire your gun? do you have police experience? do you hunt? have you ever faced a violent situation? what was your response? do you think you’ll react differently or the same now that you have a CHL? how well do you know the current laws about the use of deadly force? do you keep current with those laws? are you prepared to use deadly force to protect yourself and others? Answer me those intelligently and maybe I’ll be more comfortable with you taking a firearm to your mid-term.

    • People are carrying firearms around you everywhere else and you don’t even realize it. Why should I worry about you being “comfortable” with a CHL holder having their gun with them in class when 95% of the time you’re out in the “real world” you’re surrounded by guns.

      • Maybe because there is the desire for safety and growth in an atmosphere set up for education that is by its nature not supposed to be the ‘real world’ but something much better.

        • No – it’s supposed to prepare you for the real world not be “something much better”.

          And I think you meant “desire for a false sense of safety and growth”. Because banning lawful concealed carry doesn’t provide actual safety.

          • It is NOT the job of a college to prepare you for the “real” world. The purpose of college is to allow the individual to pursue their education. There is no false sense of safety or false sense of growth. Colleges remain as some of the safest environments. There is no need to create a false sense of danger or instill fear so that you can then attempt to say that the only recourse for that fear is to arm fearful and paranoid students.

          • Perhaps it is the CHL people who need stay home with their blankie and their gun hiding under the bed instead of attending college because they feel so unsafe. Just because you see ghost with every shadow does not mean that fear is justified or rational or the norm.

          • @disqus_FHISCqRgZC:disqus Your responses are so petulant and immature. You are really doing your cause no favors by being petty in the comment section of an article you wrote.

    • Do you have anymore questions? Snake, this isn’t California. Texas trusts its citizens with CHLs to help keep the peace and protect themselves personally, I feel safer knowing that there are people out there (including myself) that can respond quickly and deescalate before the cops. Obviously if the situations overwhelming we let the cops take over. No one is proposing being a vigilante Snake..

    • Licensed CHL carrier here: I would like to answer your questions regarding my abilities to protect myself and others. I hope this will provide some insight to those who are concerned about campus carry.

      I do not have military experience. I do, however, have over 15 years of martial arts experience with a current championship title at the national level. I fire my gun 100-200 times each month at the range. I do have limited police experience, which includes “shoot or don’t shoot” training drills. I don’t hunt, and I would never want to harm or kill an animal for recreation or sport. I am a survivor of a sexual assault. Law Enforcement did not protect me from my rapist when he stalked me and threatened to kill me for months after the (reported) rape. He had a long gun for hunting in his possession (not CHL). At the time, I was not old enough to legally obtain my CHL or handgun. Now that I have it, I no longer have to live in fear of being killed or raped again. I am very aware of the current laws regarding the use of deadly force in self-defense. I attend an annual class to keep up with the relevant laws and consult a lawyer when any questions arise. If someone threatens my life or the lives of other innocent people, I am willing to use deadly force to eliminate that threat. I hope that such a situation never arises, but if it does, I am prepared to take action.

      I am really grateful for the opportunity to attend college while legally carrying my firearm. My biggest complaint about the new law is the lack of any additional training or license requirement for CHL carriers on campus. I think that carrying on campus presents some different situations and obstacles to think about for CHL holders. I would welcome an additional training requirement that might address active shooter situations, safe gun storage in residence halls, and regulations in greater depth than the regular CHL course. It might be beneficial for the campus DPS to provide this training, so we could learn about our University’s regulations and emergency procedures. Also, it would be really great if the University provided some sort of first aid/CPR training for students. I am all for making college campuses as safe as possible. After all, we are all here to learn. Unfortunately, “safety” looks and feels different for everyone. I feel safest when I am equipped and trained to protect myself instead of relying on the police, who have seriously failed to protect me in the past.

  • When a hand gun is drawn in any situation….someone’s life is going to change forever! They don’t teach that in the CHL course. I know because I have a CHL. Having people with handguns in the classroom doesn’t make me feel safer. Accidental discharge is one reason. The “Preventative” idea of defending yourself and others from someone coming into a classroom to shoot students and professors will turn out to be the O.K. Corral. How many friendly fire deaths will come about in that situation? Attacker 3…CHL 5…Any way you spin it…it’s a bad idea!

    • I don’t know what CHL course you took, but that was repeatedly covered in mine. In fact, CHL course instructors are required to provide, at a minimum, one hour of conflict avoidance/resolution as part of the course.

      • Sooooo, CHL courses MUST have one hour of conflict avoidance? Who is teaching that subject is it a professional on conflict or just some who has their own opinion? Is one hour of conflict avoidance really equal to law enforcement training? That mere sixty minutes spent on the topic taught by those of questionable distinction should give everyone pause.

                • There certainly is alcohol on campus than guns. And far more people die from alcohol related causes than from guns. So why not the same questions about licensing for consumption of alcohol?

                  • Again, are you suggesting that alcohol should be brought into the classroom? Or is it difficult for you to stay on a topic? Alcohol use and its presence is restricted on campus so now your are saying that if we restrict one we should restrict the other? Problem solved, no guns or alcohol in classroom buildings or dorms.

                    • Actually, alcohol is not nearly as restricted at UH as guns are. I have personally attended dozens of events at the UH Law Center where alcohol was freely available.

                    • How many people do you know who died from the first sip? A single bullet can kill. I don’t know too many people who died on the spot from a glass of wine poured on their head. Bullet to the head: dead.

      • One whole hour? Wow. Impressive. How many hours in sharp-shooting, hostage-negotiation, how about swat-training? How about defusing and de-escalating a tense situation where the shooter is about to blow his brains out but the officer needs to take him alive? What sort of training do the NRA-certified trainers get in those live crisis situations? I have a feeling: 0 hours.

        • “What sort of training do the NRA-certified trainers get in those live crisis situations?”

          Once again, you are demonstrating your lack of knowledge about something you “feel” so strongly against.

          Bobby was discussing CHL instructors. They have zero connection to the NRA. Do you know anything factual about CHL’s?

          I won’t even go into your other comments about training in “sharp-shooting, hostage-negotiations, and SWAT tactics. That’s just outright absurd. (and comical)

      • Jones, you are the reason why expanded campus carry is a bad idea. Ugly comment from someone who disagrees with you. Not surprising since it has been shown that drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.

    • Of course in the mist of guns shooting everywhere, you will know who it is you are to be aiming for. Good thing only bad guys will where black hats and only good guys will where white ones so you can tell them apart. Good thing stray bullets don’t harm any innocent person and good thing when the police come on the scene they will immediately know who is suppose to be shooting who. Good thing also that all the CHL’ers know how to handle terrorist with military style machine guns and bombs. Yep, CHL have it all handled.

      • In your case Rob … a stray bullet would be a good thing … for society. I’m glad that you are safe in your personal “safe space universe”.

        • Clearly it is hard to see how you have the best interest of others in mind with your argument for CHL especially when you demonstrate your disregard for others very well and make comments about wishing a stray bullet on someone. Or as you posted to someone else “David … do society a favor … and quit polluting the UH environment … with your carbon dioxide exhalations.” Yes, you are a good spokesperson for why guns do not belong in everyone’s hands.

          • Damn … who needs a diamond-making machine … when you have tightwad Rob’s butt.
            Dude, you undoubtedly wake up in the morning … and search for ways to be … offended.
            You must live a sorry existence.

  • Why is it that when someone disagrees with ‘NRA style research’ they are using ‘cherry-picked data, studies sponsored by anti-gun groups and good old fashioned fear mongering.’

    What is more fear mongering than you ‘need’ a gun to protect yourself because the bad people are coming to get you and you need to be ready! Gun free zones are slaughter zones is written all over right wing gun blogs. Fear, fear, fear… you have to have a gun to protect yourself from a mass shooter and even if you don’t want one I will protect you. Fear, fear, fear….

    FACT:
    What do Montana & Wyoming have in common they are at the top for % of people who won a gun and they are also at the top for gun deaths per 100,000 people.

    FACT:
    For every gun that is used in self defense in the home 4 people are shot by accident in or around a home.

    I am a gun owner and I reject your assertions.

    • And let me guess where you “cherry-picked” your data.
      Mother Jones Magazine……..
      Great source (if you’re a liberal arts major).

      Golly, there must be a rash of accidental shootings!! Actually, and factually, accidental shootings are <.5% of all accidental deaths, ~550 a year.
      Based on your "FACT" math, that would mean there was only ~140 firearm self defense cases in the U.S……… B.S!

      Interesting note, why do you suppose homicide is the 2nd leading cause of death amongst individuals age 15-24? Ans. Gang violence.
      It's the same reason why gun-control groups consider a "child" anyone under age 25. To mislead the public into thinking it's poor little Jimmy that's being shot when in reality it's Tupac.

  • I’ve posted on this subject before, but it is a favorite of mine. Just to get my agenda out of the way and up front – I have a CHL & I am a student at UH. My comments today about last week’s meeting on Campus Carry at the Student Center Theater (details for the next meeting are at the end of this comment).

    The meeting was good and bad. The bad – not enough people were there. More bad – some of the people who were there. There were the stereotypical worried moms, individual college reps there trying to find any excuse possible to make their work building a “safe zone.” For instance, telling how they often held social events where cocktail were served. I guess they didn’t realize if you have a CHL, you cannot carry a firearm you can not drink – at all. At least you can get up .08 BAC to drive your torpedo home.

    Then there were the professors worried “Johnny” would not take his bad grade so well and would shoot them in anger.

    And then … there was that guy. We all know him, the uber liberal professor (ULP) who had to be helped out of the fetal position and his thumb removed from his mouth so that he could start talking … and talking … and talking. He was “the guy” who caused the first warning on the “rules” of contribution to come from the panel on the stage. Other people would speak, and sure enough, he thought his points were so important (as well as himself) that he needed more than his 2-minutes, and I am sure the narcissist in him thought we wanted to hear his well-rehearsed talking points.

    I thought ULP was going to break out into tears when the panel warned him that he would be “potentially” violating the law if he tried to post a no-gun sign in his class, office or even in his all-powerful syllabus.

    Then there were the professors who staunchly proclaimed they have other options (I presume other job offers), and some who flat-out said they were leaving the university (and I suspect the state too).

    Not to be left out, there were my favorites — the Marxists. They wanted a list of all the people on campus with a CHL, so they could check against their student list.

    I knew coming to school at my advanced age I would be swimming in Liberal Stew, but just how ugly it looks in person made me wish I could hug David Corn and Rachel Maddow to feel a little more to the right.

    Honestly, I think deep down most people realize campus carry is a non-issue. People should worry more about bad guys (and girls) who illegally carry weapons to Gun-Free Zones and have their violent way upon good people. Knowing that most people get this aspect of god guy vs. bad guy, I have to think most of those people at the meeting speaking out against CC are doing more so out of ideology. There are little-to-no facts to back up their point of view that people with a license to carry a firearm are going to snap at any moment and cause them harm.

    This emotional pushback from the (covert) gun controllers is more about mindset and ideology. They tend to believe the government or local authority is responsible for our safety. I know, for some, it can be scary realizing you are resposible for your own safety — at the individual level. Many court cases have proven the police are not responsible for individuals, they are tasked with safety of the masses.

    Signs, and even laws, can not create Utopia. No, we have to make sure those intent on evil know that their intentions come with a consequence — and it just might come directly from the people they intend to victimize. I doubt this evil is going to happen on campus, my concern is always my bus and motorcycle ride through the 3rd Ward. My concern is for those men and women (because college students are really men and women – not children) who make the long walks to the Economy Lots (day and night), as well at the student closing down the library who walks alone back to their dorm room. If they are 21, and want to a CHL to protect themselves then I very comfortable sharing a class with them.

    Gun lockers are also not the answer. The more you involve human contact in gun handling you increase the risk of accidents. I say, let the law abiding CHL holder keep their gun in their holster (and concealed) at all times.

    Sure, there are details to iron out, but the law is on the books, and legal guns are coming to UH … and it’s going to be ok. Although, we may need to invest in more mops to follow ULP around campus.

    There is another meeting this week. Tuesday the 17th at 3:00 PM in the Student Center Theater.

    • If Campus carry is such a “non-issue” why were so many NRA front groups and their minions working so hard in Austin to make it law? Seems to me, they think it is very much an issue. A 2nd Amendment right issue, if I recall correctly. One they feel very strongly about. Secondly, when will all those brave souls with guns who Wayne La Pierre promised us after Sandy Hook start showing up when the shooting starts? I have yet to see one of them step up to take out the “bad guy” with a gun. Didn’t happen in Umpqua — the one CHL carrier there stayed away — and it didn’t happen recently in Colorado — a proud Open Carry state. You remember that recent slaughter, yes, by the guy with the AR 15? He gunned down three “law abiding” citizens in broad daylight.

      • @gunfreeuh:disqus Full disclosure, have you received any assistance (monetary or otherwise), or been in contact with, any of the gun-control groups? If so, which ones?
        Be honest, it’s not that difficult to find out.

          • @gunfreeuh:disqus You didn’t answer my question. Has your group received any assistance (monetary or otherwise), or been in contact with, any of the gun-control groups? If so, which ones?

  • The public generally has a high regard and trust for armed police officers and military personnel, who are formally trained to neutralize an active shooter attack in open or confined public areas, while protecting the many innocent, non-combatants who are also present. The chaos and panic that occur during these attacks require specialized, frequent training and practice on the part of police and military.

    The same public perception cannot be held towards CHL holders, as the only proficiency requirement of hitting B27 targets is inadequate to defend against an armed attack while ensuring public safety. Numerous examples of accidental shootings of adults, children (“negligent discharges”) and vigilante behavior by civilian firearm owners do not inspire confidence. If all CHL holders were required to receive formal, standardized tactical weapons training (offered by law enforcement officers and military personnel), this may help improve the public’s perception of CHL holders from a potential “public liability/threat” to a more respected “public service”. Until then, we will continue to place more trust in the police or military personnel rather than untrained armed civilians in the event of an active shooter event.

    The obligation/responsibilities of a CHL holder extend much more beyond self-defense when he or she chooses to carry in public, as ensuring public safety also becomes equally paramount.

  • No cited statistics. Total lack of respect for opposing viewpoints. Straw man, non-sequitur, and no true Scotsman in the first three paragraphs. There is a strong case to be made for campus carry, but this is a juvenile and exceptionally poorly written article.

    There are ample facts on both sides of this debate to support whatever you believe, but it doesn’t matter what the facts are because CHL holders legitimately believe that having their gun makes them safer, which is an emotional assertion, not a factual one.

    They are going to make sure that they feel safe no matter what and they will probably win because of how much money there is on their side as opposed to on the anti-CC side.

    Full disclosure if it wasn’t abundantly clear: I am strongly against CC.

  • Well, if anything, I guess Texas has proven to the world how closely it likes to stick to its own stereotypes.

    • well, we are lagging behind the ‘hippie’ state of Colorado in this regard, so IDK what you’re talking about.

      • Sure, and Utah and Idaho for that matter, but if you ask any foreigner what USA state is most obsessed with their guns the answer is going to be “Texas”.

        • If you say so. They don’t know too many other states, other than California. They think that we still ride horses to school as well.

          I still don’t understand the point you are trying to make.

  • Last week there was an open forum with the Campus Carry committee, it’s on YouTube right now.
    I encourage everyone to read up and use the resources at uh.edu/campus-carry and come out to the second forum today at 3pm in the Student Center Theatre.
    If you can’t make it, it will be streamed live at uh.edu/campus-carry-live

Leave a Comment