TX considering concealed guns on campus
 

I searched to see if there was a thread on this already but I did not find anything.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/22...uns-on-campus/

Texas State Legislature will be looking at allowing people with a Concealed Handgun License (CHL) to carry guns on campus. I am generally conservative in my political views and support the right to bear arms but this a topic that I am strongly opposed to. It is a simple pro vs. cons for me. The actual threat of a shooting at a school is unbelievably small. The idea of CHL's on campus so that students or professors with guns could stop a potential shooter is merely an excuse to play cowboy. These are SCHOOLS, a place of learning, not the wild west and there is no reason for guns to be present. Frankly, I don't trust anyone with a CHL with my life. I just see so many negatives of this that they outweigh the positives. From what I hear, this is likely to pass into law. This just makes me furious.

People who are willing to take a handgun to kill someone won't have a problem taking it on to campus, would they?

I'm in full-support.

I've been following this for quite a while. I have somewhat mixed feelings about it.

I know a lot of students and professors already carry guns on campus. It's actually completely legal with the exception of going in buildings - outside in the quad is legal. This would just make it legal inside too.

You're not supposed to depend on someone else with a CHL to protect your life. They aren't a cop. They have a weapon to protect their own life.

While the insane shooter on campus thing is rare, though occurring a lot more lately, that's really not the whole point. I don't think anyone has a problem with an 18yo girl that has to walk across campus or through urban areas of town having a pepper spray in her hand. There are quite a lot of burglaries, rapes, and robberies on college campuses.

I remember a story from last year about a girl at SMU who was walking along a street directly next to campus in broad daylight, got snatched by 2-3 guys and gang raped for hours before being dumped somewhere. I'm not saying everyone must carry a gun, but how can I possibly deny someone the right to protect themselves if they think it's necessary?

If it passes I plan on getting my CHL. It's not those who have had the extensive training required for CHL I would worry about - and given that when I had a college student making threatening gestures to me during the class the college would do NOTHING (this was pre-VT; I wonder if they would do nothing now?) I think being able to protect myself would be a good thing. I solved the threatening student problem by having my brother the SWAT team officer come escort me a few classes - but not everyone has a police officer handy.

I've been helping to craft this legislation in several states.

A person with a CHL is not going to turn into a raving lunatic when s/he steps across the street from Starbucks on to campus. Nor is a criminally minded person going to give a darn that the campus is a gun-free zone. In fact, the criminal likely prefers an unarmed target.

Go, Texas!

I'm completely behind this. As the saying goes, if having a gun is a crime, only criminals will have guns. Those who would be carrying guns on campus with the intent to use them in an unlawful manner won't be affected by a law like this one. This evens the playing field for law-abiding citizens like the rest of us.

I have not been to every college in Texas, but I have been to many and none are the seething underworld of criminals where a gun is needed to protect yourself. and yes my life is in danger from persons with a CHL as I would be in the classroom where they are shooting back. I know several people with a CHL in Texas and none are trained to "defend" an attack on themselves in a public place like a campus. Legally this will be in interesting topic in regards to the responsibility of the person with the CHL should they hit anyone else other than the shooter. The point being guns do not belong on university properties in the hand of civilians, that is what law enforcement is for. The threat of danger is not great enough to justify guns being on campus

I respect what you're saying, but I've heard that argument from a lot of people that haven't been touched by violent crime.

I gave an example before that concerned me at the time because my girlfriend lived in the immediate area when it happened. See story:
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/121...-smu-rape-case

The police came along after the fact and did their job, which is to catch criminals so the court system can hold them accountable. Sometimes they get lucky and are able to prevent a crime before it happens, but they can't be everywhere.

Not to bring up old wounds, but Virginia Tech has a police dept, so does every other place these things have happened. Reality is law enforcement is incapable of preventing violent crimes, otherwise there wouldn't be any. These happen all the time on college campuses and in college towns. If that's my wife/gf/sister/daughter, or anyone else for that matter, and I'm not there to protect them or have the means to do so, then I either have to make sure they have the means to protect themselves, or I feel like I'm just as guilty as the one shoving them in that car to go have their life destroyed in the worst possible way.

I'm a lot more scared of that then I am the chance of a stray bullet from a CHL holder hitting an innocent bystander.

Oh, and from what I remember, Texas law provides pretty good protections to someone defending themselves. So long as the CHL holder followed the law and their training, the liability would belong to the criminal. Don't quote me on that though, I'm not a lawyer or anything.

Neither was Virginia Tech. Or Columbine. Or Luby's Cafeteria. Or any other mass-shooting you'd like to name. Therefore, a moot point.

I'd very much like to know what makes University property different from the street alongside the University. Or the Starbucks across the street.

In my opinion, it is the duty of the American citizen to, within the confines of the law, be responsible for his own safety. Therefore, one who, within the confines of the law, carries a firearm and uses it in self-defense or in defense of the life of another (phrases which, though while not all-encompassing, generally cover the laws of most states that do not deny the right to self-defense) is taking responsibility. The police are not Big Brother, thank the gods; they cannot be everywhere, again, thank the gods.

The difference isn't between the properties, it's between the population make-up of the properties. Universities are unique in that they're designed to be something of a stepping stone between living under your parents' thumbs and living by your own rules. Universities have all kinds of rules that other properties don't have. These are safeguards put in place in an attempt to protect students while still maintaining an environment that allows students to make some of their own decisions.

College students are adults who are (frequently) very new to adult life. Few college students come to school equipped with sound judgment and the capability to make tough, adult decisions. That's not a population that screams, "I should be able to bring a gun to class" to me. And I don't even want to think about the challenges of protecting students in residence halls if guns are allowed in their rooms.

Agreed. We already have the Risk Management Forum peppered with stories of tragic deaths and stupid stunts involving guns in Greek housing. I dread the day when guns are more numerous in student housing. Hormones, alcohol, incompletely matured brains and guns can be a deadly mix.

It's hardly a moot point; it's an unpersuasive or rebuttable point to you and many others. Not the same thing at all.

In much the same way, i have yet to be persuaded that, had others at Va Tech or Columbine or elsewhere been legally carrying concealed weapons, the outcomes would really have been different. People can only speculate as to that.

It's a balance of risks and people will, for a variety of reasons, balance them differently.

I've been going back and forth on this in my head, and this is where I'm ending up I think. That and the fact I'm not convinced that adding more guns to the Virginia Tech situation would have solved anything. As for police not protecting people in Virginia Tech type situations, that's not what police DO. They respond and react, there's no way other than living under martial law to have police presence 24/7 and most people don't want that. It's a trade off - such disturbing massacres are incredibly rare, and in exchange for accepting that risk we don't walk down corridors/streets/cities with police at every possible checkpoint.

I think the belief that citizens who had been carrying concealed weapons would have 'helped' in VTech or similar situations is rooted on the misguided, but incredibly common belief that "if I had been there, I would have done ..." Where "..." is typically something best left to people in movies and in reality you would have been running, screaming, hiding, or bleeding. The odds that you, or anyone, would have whipped out a gun, and shot that guy, hitting and disabling him and rendering him incapable of returning fire, are slim to none. More likely is that he would see 'you' and your gun, and shoot you, since his gun(s) is/are already drawn, and pointed in your general direction. Additionally when the police DO come, they are now dealing with 'multiple shooters' and 'you' innocent not-so-defenseless civilian that you are could very well end up shot yourself. Just as people were saying that the laws in Texas protect people who shoot people in self defense, the police are protected from this as well.

I think people fantasize that if it had been them in a hostage situation at a bank or restaurant, or if it had been them walking down the street witnessing someone get mugged that they would have been able to DO something. Whether they are armed or not. However, most bystanders just won't do anything, it's a fact of human psychology and sociology even if it's a disturbing one. And in a hostage situation it is actually recommended that you NOT play John McClane for rather obvious reasons. You are likely to get everyone killed or injured rather than save the day. When they train civilians to deal with a hostage situation there's a reason they don't say "find whatever weapon you have and fight back."

Overall, college campuses are areas where I feel like guns are not particularly necessary. You're free to have one off campus based on the laws of your locale. But the "only outlaws will have guns" line is a sidenote. Gun free campuses would not stop a Vtech like massacre, obviously. However nothing would stop that other than full campus lockdown with police or even military presence everywhere. And the perpetrators of such events aren't thinking "Goooooood, they're defenseless because they don't have guns" but instead are generally mentally unstable and could be thinking anything from "Gooooood, now I'll kill the queen of France" to "I'll show them, I'll show them all." But keeping guns off campuses does remove the risks of accidents, the risks of intoxicated idiocy with weapons, the risks of domestic gun violence, and so on.

Exactly, Drolefille. The difference between the average person with concealed weapons permits and the VTech shooter is that the latter was a motivated offender. The average law abiding citizen with access to guns is not constantly thinking about, and preparing for, the opportunity to have to use the gun on a person. Those who are are one step away from also being a motivated offender and need to check into a mental health facility.

Those who love guns and are passionate about carrying them have a right to feel that way. But their passion for guns and desire to protect themselves should be relegated to certain establishments. That isn't an unrealistic demand considering the role of guns as an opportunity and facilitating factor for criminality for both motivated offenders and judgment impaired (drugs, alcohol, immaturity, anger in domestic disputes---all of which noncoincidentally are present on college campuses) people who would otherwise be law abiding citizens.

And I'm not surprised that the opinions of those who do not agree with what TX is doing have been reduced to "the opinion of people who have never been violently victimized." That's an assumption. But, I could easily say the same for the people who are excited for this proposed law. The average person who is a fan of this law has never been violently victimized. They think they are protecting themselves and preparing for the low likelihood that they may ever be victimized. At which time they are statistically more likely to either not be able to access/use their gun at all (a gun on the hip isn't the same as a gun in your hands) OR have their own gun used against them. The same goes for people who have guns in their home. This truth may hurt but that doesn't make it an untruth.

Totally agree. I'd be more concerned about accidental incidents when people are intoxicated than intentional criminal use.

I also totally agree with Drole's whole post.

I'd also like to add that vigilante justice is a dangerous thing and is often guised as "self defense". If widespread, due process would be out the window and our society would be close to anarchy.