A screenshot of Gun Free UH’s video showing SGA Presidential candidate Edwin Mascorro speaking at a campus carry open forum in November. | Glissette Santana/The Cougar
Gun Free UH, an anti-campus carry organization, has released a video denouncing the campaign of SGA presidential candidate Edwin Mascorro.
“This came out of nowhere,” Mascorro said. “I found it hilarious that four days into the campaign there was an attack video on me, and they came out directly for me.”
Alex Colvin, president of Gun Free UH, said that releasing the video was an important thing to do because students need to pay attention to who is running for leadership positions, especially in student government.
The video featured a clip of Mascorro speaking at a campus carry open forum in November in which he is quoted as saying that he believes that gun-free zones are targets.
“If you’re going to spread propaganda in public, on tape, in front of the (campus carry) workgroup, people should know where you’re getting that (information) from,” Colvin said.
While Mascorro said that he cares about Gun Free UH’s position, the video isn’t going to change the way that he feels, especially because he thinks that being a veteran and growing up in the Fifth Ward gives him a different perspective.
“I know there are strong feelings on both sides of the aisle, whether you support campus concealed carry or you’re against campus concealed carry,” Mascorro said. “Being an analytical person, I tend to not have the emotions on making decisions on how I support it. But at the end of the day, I realize that emotions do play a factor because we are all humans.”
Mascorro said that the quote shown in the video is taken out of context.
“What he said wasn’t misconstrued because I was at the forum,” Colvin said. “He introduced himself as a chemical major, and he’s very analytical. Here’s the problem with that statement: if he’s very analytical, then why isn’t he able to analyze the fact that the things he’s promoting have nothing to do with laws that are asked for by the constituents.”
Colvin said that propaganda has been spreading around campus pertaining to these issues, and Gun Free UH is trying to stop it.
“That’s one of things that I’ve been doing with Gun Free UH is showing this propaganda, where it’s coming from and the people that are supporting it,” Colvin said. “And unfortunately, some of those people are also running for leadership positions in student government.”
On balance this was fair. You left out the part where I’m a student at UH; History senior, anthropology minor. Other than that, It was balanced.
I watched your video and find it hilarious how you edited it, and closed the comments section. Typical…
BTW, did you ask where the other candidates stand, or did you only pick on the one who has the courage to voice his opinion? Or,,,,hmmmmmm maybe you’re just ____ist! (learned that one from the liberal left!)
John Fields is also a member of Students for Concealed Carry, and was also on a pro-gun radio talk show discussing his position as the SGA Speaker When asked if he was affiliated with any pro-gun groups he denied his involvement with SCC, which he had been for several months at the time of the interview. He’s also a big Ted Cruz fan. The NRA paid for Cruz;s Texas senator’s seat, documents make clear, and the SCC is a TP front group, and everyone knows Cruz is a TP firebrand. Not hard to figure out where Fields affinities lay, since he’s also a member of College Republicans. Nice thing about the Internet, there so much good info. But SGA Presidents have a duty to put principles ahead of petty partisan politics, for the well being of all students — including the more than 10,000 International students who are legally forbidden from having guns — something I fear a TP sympathizer and pro-gun candidate isn’t likely to care much about.
Hey, if the NRA can close the comments section on its Facebook page the day after Sandy Hook this guy can block comments on his Youtube video.
GFUH posted a video with claims about a candidate and then shut down discussion. The only reason I can think of doing that is cowardice.
…lol. You gun people are hilarious to me. It’s like you’re out of the middle ages or something. “Sirrah, I hath named ye a cowarde! Whilst thou accept my challenge?”
So the NRA was cowardly when they shut down comments on their Facebook page the day after Sandy Hook?
I could probably use a term other than cowardice, but TDC would probably censor me…
If the NRA shut down its Facebook it’s probably because when a mentally deranged person, who murders his mother, steals her guns, and then murders 20 children, people like you believe the NRA is responsible..
Just curious. Do you also blame the alcohol manufactures for the ~80,000 alcohol related deaths last year, and ~30% of all driving fatalities?
Just trying to figure out your logic.
Well done, Gun-Free UH! There are ZERO benefits and high risks of campus carry, as negligent discharges and increased rape have already occurred in campuses since they allowed guns in Colorado, Utah and Idaho. There are other options for improving campus security than allowing untrained, irresponsible 21yr olds to carry guns in classrooms. Vote now to allow public universities to OPT OUT of campus carry, as EVERY TEXAS PRIVATE UNIVERSITY HAS DONE SO.
Increased rape due to allowing CHL’s, who are 10x more law abiding than the general citizenry (in Texas) on campus?? Really???
Instead you want more of this.
https://youtu.be/KTfhMUCApIA
Women should be appalled with you and Alex!
More guns= More deaths. That is a FACT. Stop believing the pro-gun propaganda of lies and misinformation. Guns have NO PLACE in the classroom, a place of higher education and free thought. Chances of getting shot by a negligent discharge by untrained, irresponsible shooters are much higher than getting shot by a terrorist.
Ahh yes, guns have no place in higher education. Because that stopped so many mass shootings. okay.
More people=more deaths. Ban people from colleges!
More guns=more deaths.
More guns in criminals hands= more deaths.
Evidence is inconclusive on wether or not more guns causes more death
Yes, the gangs are shooting each other with bows and arrows.
Then close the gun show loop hole and increase gun control. I guess there weren’t any gangs until handguns became available.
No, actually, the death rate per capita has fallen very steadily as population has increased. Chiggity-check your facts, Kelly!
What has risen is the homicide rate in countries with high rates of gun ownership and weak social safety nets.
I guess fallen death rates has nothing to do with increasing life expectancy and actually homicide rates have decreased according to the washington post. In your face.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/
The death rate as compared with other, non gun-owning countries. A 5% drop in the homicide rate (which in fact is surging in the last year, if you check your facts) is noting compared to a 5x or 10x difference.
The U.S. is number 91 in homicide rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#United_States
…98 actually, 3 spots behind war-torn Kosovo and just two spots ahead of Iran. Fine company we keep. Try comparing us to developed nations instead of those who are in a perpetual state of crisis.
Just bringing the facts bud. The reason we have a higher homocide rate than france or the UK is our war on drugs, it perpetuates poverty and gang violence. More guns isnt the problem.
Decreased murder rate from FBI
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/images/murderrate.png
Just because some CHLs are law-abiding does NOT mean they are adequately trained to defend against an armed attack, or know when/when not to shoot. It takes regular defensive tactical training to be proficient, not just a few hours of basic safety and marksmanship demo using inanimate b27 targets. The non-LEO civilian training/proficiency requirements for owning and carrying a firearm are GROSSLY INADEQUATE, ranging from NONE to 8hrs of safet/marksmanship. No state requires any defensive tactics AT ALL.
Women are better off taking a self-defense course on street-fighting, joint locks and groundwork- especially for defending against sexual assaults or date rape, which is most common. A gun will be USELESS to prevent date rape, and will most likely be used against the woman.
Groundfighting for females is useless, unless they are at least a purple belt. Strength will overcome their technique an overwhelmingly majority of the time.
Amanda Collins is an NRA member and was testifying at the request of the NRA. NRA is the organization which introduced the “model legislation” then in 2008 adopted by ALEC in 2008 which was eventually adopted as S.B. 11. No amount of name-calling or goofy subterfuge can change any of that, or the breadcrumbs of evidence leading directly to their unwholesome involvement in hijacking the people’s right to be governed by consent. Of course Collins was going to pitch the pro-gun agenda. That was her job. For people who claim to be so detached from the emotional side of the issue, you sure love to point out stories intended to evoke sympathy and compassion — two very strong emotions — to make your case, while trying to obscure evidence that is very well documented, such as the fact that Mascurro, like John Fields, are members of Students for Concealed Carry — itself a Tea Party front group which is also well-documented. The veil of lies is being pulled back, and will continue to be.
So, if female NRA members are raped their testimony supporting the right to self-defence is null-void? Then claim it was “her job?” You guys are really sick.
There’s a reason why CO citizens were so outraged by state senator Evie Hudak (D) comments in the above video. Rather than face a recall election she resigned!!
Women across this nation should be outraged. How dare an old white male (GFUH Alex) decide whether-or-not a woman has the right-to-choose to carry a firearm to defend themselves!
Sorry, Max. Not buying your faux outrage.
There is a reason you’re posting under the name “Guest”–you’re making unfounded allegations that you know you can’t back up.
https://www.facebook.com/ConcealedCampus/videos/10153912190397622/
So the puppet of ALEC and GOA continues to spread libertarian lies and misinformation yet again, threatening campus security by advocating fellow untrained, armed civilian students to carry loaded handguns into classrooms. You won’t even tolerate carrying without a chambered round in classrooms, even though you KNOW this will improve safety and prevent negligent discharges from occurring, which, by the way , have already happened in universities that allow campus carry.
How much funding did ALEC and GOA prop you up with?
ALEC has never donated anything to us. In the nine years that SCC has been in existence, GOA has donated a whopping $500 (a one-time donation during a fundraising drive).
The fact that you have to fall back on conspiracy theories and ad hominem attacks to defend your position suggests that you’re not nearly as rational as your user name would have us believe.
Can we assume from your comments about carrying with an unloaded chamber that you also support laws that make it impossible for a woman to obtain a legal abortion, while not technically outlawing abortion? We ask because that’s essentially what carrying with an empty chamber does–it makes its virtually impossible to use a handgun for self-defense, while not technically outlawing campus carry.
We explain it in detail here: http://concealedcampus.org/2015/12/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-ut-austins-campus-carry-recommendations/
And here: http://concealedcampus.org/2015/12/further-analysis-of-ut-austins-campus-carry-recommendations/
And here: http://concealedcampus.org/2016/01/testimony-of-scc-southwest-director-antonia-okafor-before-the-texas-senate-committee-on-state-affairs/
As explained in those articles, requiring empty-chamber carry actually INCREASES the odds of a negligent discharge on campus.
On the 100+ U.S. college campuses that currently allow campus carry and that have done so for an average of 6+ years, there have been a total of four negligent discharges (if you include the one involving a police cadet at an on-campus police academy).
Two of those negligent discharges (one by a staff member and one by the police cadet) involved license holders showing their guns to other people, something that will still be a serious crime under Texas’s campus carry law.
The other two negligent discharges (one by a professor and one by a student) involved license holders carrying their handguns in a pocket, without a holster, something that would be prohibited under UT’s proposed campus carry policy (even without the empty-chamber requirement).
It is obvious that you have NEVER been in a fire fight.
Those negligent discharges are FAR too many, because they were NOT battle-ready. Society demands proof that CHLs are WELL-TRAINED and PROFICIENT in firearm safety, marksmanship and defensive tactics before they carry in public, especially in university campuses where there is a high concentration of young people. CHLs are OBLIGATED to ensure the safety of innocent bystanders within their firing range. Thus, your responsiblity extends FAR beyond self-defense when you carry a firearm in highly populated public areas.
By the way, the exodus of high quality faculty and students has already begun as a direct result of campus carry (UT Dean of Architecture is leaving) MAJORITY of Texas students, faculty, staff and campus security as well as majority if Texas residents are OPPOSED to campus carry, or want the universities to decide for themselves. Instead, our gundamentalist legislature tyrannically forced passage of the irresponsible and dangerous bill AGAINST the will of the majority. Professors’ first amendment rights are infringed as they are subjugated to self-censorship in their own classrooms under threat of the gun.
The reputation and quality of Texas public universities will be SIGNIFICANTLY downgraded as a result of campus carry. Good luck trying to find a job after you graduate, as NO EMPLOYER will hire you (unless they are the gun lobby).
Intellectually, these professors are no different than someone whose actions are defined by an irrational fear of sharks, witchcraft, or vaccines.
If my spouse, who is a professor in the UT System, gets shot in campus by an untrained, irresponsible armed civilian- regardless of whether it is unintentional or not, I WILL HOLD YOU PERSONALLY ACCOUNTABLE.
Statistically, your spouse is much more likely to die at your hands or his or her own hands than at the hands of a Texas concealed handgun license/license to carry holder.
You are wrong. Chances of getting shot by a negligent discharge are higher than getting shot by a mass shooter. You have forced guns in my spouse’s classroom, purposely endangering his/her safety and DIRECTLY infringing free speech and exchange of ideas. Professors are now subjugated to self-censorship under threat of the gun in their classrooms. This is NOT freedom, but oppression and tyranny.
Every university should have the autonomy to decide on campus carry, as there are SAFER and MORE EFFECTIVE OPTIONS than allowing UNTRAINED, ARMED 21yr OLD STUDENTS TO CARRY LOADED FIREARMS IN CLASSROOMS.
That stat is tired and inaccurate for a number of reasons if not for the one reason that in campus criminal investigations a person’s CHL status does not come up. UHPD Chief Ceaser Moore, with all of his 30+ years of law enforcement experience, said that himself in the Campus Carry open forum in November.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi9qpnryozLAhUpmoMKHc4cCjEQtwIIMjAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DRjeOWmZc1gk&usg=AFQjCNGbar0DC7U2tN3_7XWfsm9Ub0u0VQ
That being said, I will concede that a lot of the fear surrounding campus carry has been overstated. I was/ am to an extent in that lot. Again, Ceaser Moore helps put to rest the notion that EVERYONE will be carrying a gun in the second campus carry forum in November where he cited stats from other school with campus carry that only a fraction of a fraction of a percent of students are legally carrying a weapon on campus at any time.
However, there are thoughts that have yet to have been settled with me. What about the people who will carry untrained/illegally now whether it be out of an emboldened sense of entitlement or even a guy who just literally doesn’t want to be caught with a knife in a gun fight? How about the people who can’t carry because they can’t afford the expensive training/licensure requirements necessary to carry legally? What about the thousands of international students who can’t legally procure a gun; much less get a CHL to carry on campus? On top of that, outside of a firearm related incident occurring, UHPD has no legal way of ensuring that people who are carrying are carrying legally, so how does UHPD even effectively enforce the law?
So, it’s cool that all 400ish CHL students at UH will feel protected under the law with their license and training, but this bill consequently leaves the vast majority of the rest of the student body out to dry.
Pleeeasse,,,,, you’re claiming it’s not true because criminal investigations by the UHPD aren’t tracked like every other crime in the ENTIRE STATE OF TEXAS by the TX Department of Public Safety, and the crimes on campus “somehow” skew the CHL/non-CHL crime statistics!! Really???
You guys are getting really desperate in spreading misinformation.
Prove me wrong! Here’s links for your research. I’m pretty certain you’re not a History Major, so I hope you don’t need help with the basic math…
http://dps.texas.gov/administration/crime_records/pages/crimestatistics.htm
https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm
Ooh, deep cuts to a whole major. Classy.
Meanwhile, your use of commas makes me cringe…
However, my major did teach me to take numbers at more than their face value.
Sure I can look at those numbers and see that CHL holders have faced less convictions when compared to the general population, but that is a skewed stat in and of itself. You know what number stands out to me? “Unlawful Possession of Firearm by Felon”. One of the largest numbers in that stat is invalidated by the fact that a felon can’t have a CHL. Does removing that number change the percentage by a lot? No, but it is significant and raises question about the motivations of something that would seem so otherwise benign.
You know what else I see in those numbers? A large swathe of CHL suspensions, revocations, and denials within the common college aged demographic, which at UH is 18-30, and then I remember that these stats don’t even reflect post SB11 implementation statistics which I’m sure will totally go down. Sure, these numbers are evident of the system catching people who shouldn’t have a CHL, but what it does show is that college kids are just that: college kids; known for being reckless, rambunctious, and sometimes reactive.
Also, your stats do nothing to address the legitimate concerns I had in my last comment, also with 30+ years of experience and most of that being with HPD (not UHPD) I think Ceaser Moore is probably in some position to know.
No, they’re not tracked because the gun lobby has banned any research or tracking of guns and gun ownership, even as a part of criminal activity.
Gun owners are *so afraid* of finding out the truth about guns, they’ve literally banned even asking the question.
“but this bill consequently leaves the vast majority of the rest of the student body out to dry”
Those people wouldnt be able to have a ccw anyway. I dont think conceal carry is a right, i think it a privilege, one we have to pay for.
Ooh really? So only those privileged enough to pay for a license should be able to protect themselves? That seems to defeat the fundamental teachings of your lot. Not to mention a little elitist at best.
” So only those privileged enough to pay for a license should be able to protect themselves?”
Yes. You have the right to have a shotgun in your house, doesn’t mean you get it for free.
My lot eh? I’m actually an independent that will probably vote for Bernie. If you can afford a handgun, you can afford the application fees.
Thank you for divulging your political preferences as if that validates your opinion. If to mirror that insight into I will tell you that I am by no means afraid of firearms. I own several. I just don’t believe firearms have a place on a college campus except for in the hands of trained law enforcement. By “your lot” I mostly meant you and the others in this thread who have touted that campus carry should be a right, not a privilege, and yet you throw out there now that only those with the means to pay for protection are the only ones who should be able to protect themselves? Again, that seems elitist at best, especially since it will only apply to a small fraction of a percentage of the campus population. And what of the rest? What about international students? What about anyone who can’t legally have a CHL? What about UHPD’s admitted inability to even ensure this law is properly enforced? There are still a ton a questions that surround the implementation of this bill, and you will have to forgive me for being one of the people who is not at ease with those questions.
Those 18-20 year olds, international students and others are already surrounded by CHL holders when the go to public places. Carry at UH isnt any different. I actually said its a privilege not a right, so you cant lump me in with the lot. If you can buy a revolver at a pawn shop for $100, then you can afford the fees. Right, because the UHPD prevents all the 1000 crimes commited every year on campus.
There are different expectations in the general public than there is at a place of higher education. Namely, colleges often put students in situations of high stress, high controversy, high tension, and high chance of failure. To say the conditions in public are the same as conditions at a school is inaccurate. Couple that with the mentality of the typical college demographic and the widespread indulgence of alcohol and drugs at UH and I don’t think you have a recipe for someone who should be carrying a firearm on campus.
Plus, have you ever met an international student? The ones I know barely leave campus, and just aren’t even aware of gun culture in this state. For a lot of them it’s frightening, and I don’t blame them.
You keep saying that if someone can afford a gun they can afford the fees. Not necessarily. The application fee is 140$, training classes are typically in the 90$ range, that doesn’t count rental fees, fingerprinting, background check, etc. all of which have to be done to get a CHL. I don’t have to do any of those things just to obtain a firearm. Fun fact btw, the 2nd amendment is the only article in the Bill of Rights that requires any sort of purchase to enjoy.
Lastly, you’re overstating the crime rate on campus.
http://www.uh.edu/police/2014-University-of-Houston-Annual-Security-and-Fire-Report.pdf
Glancing at that report, there’s been about 300 offenses over the last 3 years, and only about 19% of those could have even been prevented with a CHL. Whereas, increased staffing in a severely understaffed UHPD with trained law enforcement professionals could deter 98% of those crimes.
Your right, its 300. Rly 98%? Thats literally might be impossible. I disagree with UH being more stressful, CHL holders get road rage every day withou incidents and countless other real-world problems. If anything college is the cushiest place besides elementary school. So we have to consider peoples feelings? No, we consider practicality. Ill take that 19%, so if allowing campus carry will prevent 19% of crime, then wow, what a victory that would be.
19% of those COULD have been prevented with a CHL in the same vein a 98% COULD be prevented by better police presence. Doesn’t mean either of those would come to fruition. No. It’s a statistical chance. And it’s funny you should mention road rage, because every since open carry I’ve heard of more and more reports of people getting guns pulled on them in traffic. And if you think college is a cushy place then your major must be a joke. Having one foot in the real world with my career, traffic, bills, etc. and one foot still in school, school stresses me out far more than any of the other things combined. And, you can’t say things don’t get heated in a classroom especially when politics and religion comes in to play. I took a philosophy class a few years back and the prof had to call security because a student literally threatened the professor just for saying that religion was a man-made construct. And what part of this is practical? UH is having to spend a lot of its own money to implement safety measures that are only going to apply to a fraction of a fraction of the student population. Meanwhile, the school can’t even collect data on who does and doesn’t have a CHL or they risk a $10,000 fine for doing so. That’s very impractical. And you can’t discount people’s “feelings” towards the matter either. If people feel like their safety is compromised (regardless of how valid those concerns are) then they’ll leave. UT has already experienced this with some of their distinguished faculty leaving over the matter. I’m sure UH wont be immune to this and that hurts the school’s reputation.
Believing that is possible to reduce crime from 100 to 2 a year, is the most wishful thinking ive ever heard. Even the possible 19% is laughable. Im actually a ChemE major, the hardest degree program offered at UH. By cushy i mean sensitive, you kids are too sensitive for the real world. Ive never seen one report of open carry people pulling a gun on someone yet. I will believe it is a problem if you can provide 5 instances of this in the last month. Campus carry is practical because it allows a small minority of students who are allowed to carry in texas, able to carry from our house to school and back. I cant carry any day i go to class because guns arent even allowed in my car.
Ah, a fellow engineer. And I realize that sounded pretty abrasive the way I said it which I didn’t really mean. And run over to r/Houston/ real quick. Some of the most recent posts on there are of people having guns pulled on them in traffic. And you haven’t addressed how campus carry is practical outside of how you feel because you can’t carry at school (yet).
It’s ok, I like passionate debates. Since I can’t carry on UH property, my ability to carry outside of school is limited on days that I have to come to campus. This is because I’m not even allowed to have my pistol in my car on UH property. Campus carry eliminates this unintentional (or intentional) restriction by UH policy. Additionally, there’s been dozens of instances where violent crime against persons were thwarted by a concealed weapon. My pistol is my insurance against unforeseen events.
Wheres the chaos at UT? Wheres the students flipping out on professors?
The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by legally owned guns, including CHL’s.
Why do people who are against guns constantly make false accusations and disregard facts?
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 1997 and 2004.
Why do people who support guns constantly completely ignore the facts which exist related to guns?
This is not a study of guns involved in crimes, it is a study of guns owned by criminals. Understand the difference?
Yes. Really. Incidence of campus rape INCREASED by ~30% in Utah and Colorado since they passed campus carry.
Sorry, UH is partly public so you cant OPT out
The law needs to change then.
That’s the terrifying part of the ‘liberty’ that gun owners are pursuing – mandatory gun exposure, even to those who don’t want it. The government can’t *force* someone to do something it doesn’t want to do – especially when that something is so clearly linked to crime, violence and death.
Conceal carry actually isn’t linked to more crime, if anything less crime. The gov’t isn’t forcing you to do anything. They can force who you live around, such as illegal immigrants (linked to violence/death). You won’t even know if someone is conceal carrying, you can go about your normal day without worrying.
Conceal carry *is* linked to more crime. More guns, more gun crime. It’s a fact, not some gun lobby lie trying to convince people that guns save you.
The absolutely laughable comparison you make to immigrants shows the fallacy of your argument. If illegal immigrants present a danger whether or not you know they are there, then so do guns.
“Overall, they found no connection between allowing concealed weapons and crime rates, which are trending downward nationwide” – Texastribune.org
https://www.texastribune.org/2015/09/24/study-says-concealed-carry-permits-dont-affect-cri/
How could i not know illegal immigrants are here? I am surrounded by them. They take priority over assisted childcare because I don’t speak spanish and I’m white. Is it not a fact that gang members come from mexico and wreak havok?
Federal law bans tracking guns in crime. To suggest that somehow this data exists is to suggest that the people who collected it are in prison for violating the law.
>How could i not know illegal immigrants are here? I am surrounded by them.
Well this is the most racist offensive thing I’ve heard all day. You do know that not all ‘brown people’ are illegal immigrants, right?
>They take priority over assisted childcare because I don’t speak spanish and I’m white.
If they are illegal they can’t register for government assistance. You are incredibly bigoted.
> Is it not a fact that gang members come from mexico and wreak havok?
It is not a fact. Immigrants commit violent crimes at a far lower rate than Americans.
Actually they can track guns in crimes. Here are your facts.
https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/u-s-homicides-by-weapon-type-handguns-knives-other-weapons-unknown_chartbuilder.png
>”Well this is the most racist offensive thing I’ve heard all day. You do know that not all ‘brown people’ are illegal immigrants, right?”
How is this racist? I said nothing about a one race being better than another. Who said I was talking about brown people? Making generalizations like that could offend people you know.
There are 400,000 illegal immigrants in Houston, of whom, are clustered around south Houston, which is where I live. If I was in Montana I would say I’m surrounded by whites, is that racist?
>”If they are illegal they can’t register for government assistance. You are incredibly bigoted.”
Yes they can, how do you think illegal immigrant children attend public school. Check your facts. And how is this bigoted? It is a fact, a certain assistance provider gives you more “points” if you are hispanic and speak spanish. I have less of a chance to receive assistance, this is a fact.
>”It is not a fact. Immigrants commit violent crimes at a far lower rate than Americans”
I’m talking about illegal immigrants who are violent criminals, not legal immigrants, or illegals that are working. Actually, as far as all immigrants are concerned, both sides data are manipulated and inconclusive when it comes to crime.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/16/voices-gomez-undocumented-immigrant-crime-san-francisco-shooting/30159479/
Alex Colvin is attacking the only NON-WHITE candidate in the race. I believe they call that — RACISM.
UT just announced a sensible policy in which the average student can carry on into the classroom in the normal course of a days activities on campus. The restricted (soft-target) areas are not normally accessed by CHL students on a daily basis.
Undoubtedly, UH will adopt a similar policy. UT’s President even noted that prohibiting guns from the classroom will not comply with the law. I also agree that rounds should not be chambered for carriers.
****TROLL****
David … if you can put more than five words together … you might be able to pass First Grade.
“Hey guys, am I doing logic right? Guys?” – Bobocefus Jones
“And unfortunately, some of those people are also running for leadership positions in student government.”
The fact that someone in GFUH told someone in the chat to “go pour peroxide your eyes” is an administrator, is scary. We need to know the type of people are in GFUH.
Here is the comment that GFUH has since deleted.
What is frightening is people who want to run around and play rambo.
When has the U.S. ever had a problem with vigilantes? Are there gangs of vigilantes killing people? Or anyone at all trying to fight crime?
You are surrounded by people with concealed handguns everyday and don’t even realize it. Have you seen a vigilante yet?
You have got to be kidding? There are vigilante shootings and attacks on the news all the time.
Like who?? All i see are people being hit by stray bullets from gang members and cops shooting people? Where are the vigilantes??
Lol, I just saw this, and I love that you caught my response in the screenshot.
“…especially because he thinks that being a veteran and growing up in the Fifth Ward gives him a different perspective.”
Well, this means he does in fact have a different perspective. Everyone has a different perspective. I feel like these writers and GFUH try to shame veterans for citing their experience. It seems experience is only citable or credible if your a SJW.
Why do I get the feeling that “guest”, “rational,” and any non-linked account commenting against campus carry is Alex Colvin just pretending to be other people than GFUH…
PoliceOne has posted numerous surveys that pretty much say that LEO’s don’t believe gun control actions work, and from the grand majority of Vet’s I’ve talked to they’ve always scoffed at the idea that not allowing students to use their LtC’s on campus is supposedly safer.