Alternate Viewpoint on HB 1893

[kd5zex]

My CHL instructor published this in his latest newsletter:

http://stayingalive.info/newsletter/htd ... -04-12.htm

HB 1893
Reality Check - Guns on Campus

The Texas Legislature is currently considering a Bill (HB 1893) to amend Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to allow properly licensed individuals to carry handguns on the Texas campuses of institutions of higher education.

The anti-gun lobby argues that to allow guns on campus would turn them into killing fields, and put students in greater danger. This is the same lame argument that they presented a dozen years ago, when the original CHL laws were passed. It was a bogus argument then, and it remains a bogus argument today.

But, this isn't about their argument; It's about "our" argument. What about "our" argument that allowing CHL licensees to carry on campus will make all the students safer? What about "our" argument that [at least some] the students that died at Virginia Tech or Northern Illinois University would be alive, today, if some of the good guys on those campuses had been carrying guns?

I contend that "our" argument has become as bogus as that of the anti-gunners.

"We" argue that the police can not protect everyone and that it is the responsibility of every individual to provide for his/her own defense. Then, in the same breath, "we" make the claim that a few armed CHL Licensees, carrying guns, will make our campuses safe. Think about it - If CHL Licensees will make our campuses safe, the addition of more police would do the same thing.

I contend that "we" are making the wrong argument. As a CHL Licensee, it is neither my duty nor is it my responsibility to keep my college campus safe. It is not my job to become a policeman.

So, where's the benefit in passing HB 1893?

The benefit accrues to me, the individual, who realizes that, "It is my duty and my responsibility to keep myself safe from the likes of Cho Seung-Hui (VT) and Steven Phillip Kazmierczak (NIU), who would seek to harm or kill me. Let me possess my handgun on the campus of my school, so I can defend myself the same way in the classroom as I now can in the mall parking lot."

If the Virginia Tech murders had occurred at the UT campus, and had I been there with my concealed handgun, would the 32 that died that day still be alive? Probably not. BUT I WOULD. And, that's what makes passage of HB 1893 so important.

I hope that you will contact your elected representative and encourage passage of HB 1893.

He makes some good points that were pointed out in the recent ABC editorial and also have been the subject of a few recent threads.

[seamusTX]

I'm going to play the devil's advocate here.

Many people in this forum have pointed out that discussing mass murders on campus is not an effective argument. Though horrendous, mass murders are stastically rare. Furthermore, with only about 2% of the adult population having a CHL, and most of those past the average college age, it is unlikely that an armed CHL holder would be present at an attempted mass murder.

For every mass murder, there are hundreds of rapes, robberies, and assaults on college campuses or on people traveling to or from these "gun free" zones. Students and school staff members deserve the right to defend themselves as they see fit from those threats.

However, to someone who has not looked at this issue rationally (including most legislators) that argument sounds selfish.

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with looking out for your self-interest first, but it has a bad reputation.

- Jim

[Purplehood]

I'm going to play the devil's advocate here.

Many people in this forum have pointed out that discussing mass murders on campus is not an effective argument. Though horrendous, mass murders are stastically rare. Furthermore, with only about 2% of the adult population having a CHL, and most of those past the average college age, it is unlikely that an armed CHL holder would be present at an attempted mass murder.

For every mass murder, there are hundreds of rapes, robberies, and assaults on college campuses or on people traveling to or from these "gun free" zones. Students and school staff members deserve the right to defend themselves as they see fit from those threats.

However, to someone who has not looked at this issue rationally (including most legislators) that argument sounds selfish.

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with looking out for your self-interest first, but it has a bad reputation.

- Jim

Classification Average Age Standard Deviation Age Minimum Age Maximum Age
FR 19.69 2.00 17 44
SO 21.44 3.31 18 54
JR 24.59 5.80 18 64
SR 26.84 6.88 18 72
PB UG 31.57 7.81 21 63
PB GR 33.79 10.00 22 72
M 29.91 7.65 17 89
D 35.88 9.14 23 71
AUD 26.31 2.71 22 34
ALL 27.17 7.94 17 89

I firmly dispute the notion that older folks do not make up a significant portion of a college/university population.

The figures above come from the University of Texas - Dallas, and look remarkably similar to others done during a cursory "Google" search.

[seamusTX]

The figures that you quoted appear to have come from this site:

http://www.utdallas.edu/ospa/stats/Spri ... allas.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If the average age of all students is 27.17 and the standard deviation is 7.94, that means that about 2/3 of the students are between 19 and 35. Few are younger, of course.

If you look at the demographics of licenses issue in 2008, about 10% are issued to people under 35 (I'm too lazy to do the precise calculation).

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... Issued.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We could argue all day about whether the college demographic would have "few" or "some" or "not many" armed CHL holders. I'm confident that there would be fewer than you find at a meeting of the rod and gun club. That's why psychopaths rarely if ever shoot up rod and gun clubs or police conventions.

If you look at mass murders that occur at places other than "gun-free zones," places where it is legal to carry and the age distribution is the same as the general population, they are rarely stopped by non-LEOs.

That's why I think it's futile to speculate about mass murders.

The rights of the individual student or school employee who chooses to arm himself or herself for personal self-protection are the issue here, IMHO.

And while I'm on the soapbox, college-age women are frequently the targets of rapists, robbers, and jilted "boyfriends." They need to protect themselves more than adult men do.

- Jim

[A-R]

kd5zex and seamus, two great and very well reasoned posts. I agree that the reason ANYONE should carry a concealed handgun is to protect themselves, their family, and their property. We - as responsible CHL holders - ARE NOT police officers. And insinuating that we think we are or should be just gives "ammo" to the anti-gunners to paint us all as nutjobs. An anti-gunner in my own family sited the 20/20 TV show about "if I had a gun" to try to convince me that it was pointless for me to carry a gun - that I would just get myself killed if I tried to use it. I have not seen the show yet, but it's on my DVR and I plan to watch it. But it took me quite a lot of convincing to assure her that I was not some vigilante who was going to don the cape and "Super Cop" attitude and whip out my handgun to "save the day" for everyone. I don't have the training or skill to take on an armed mass killer with my CCW. But, as seamus said, I WILL BE ALIVE after it's all over and will use my CCW to ensure that I am.

This is not to say that I/we are cowardly in any way. Just reinforces the important idea that a CHL does not make us all LEOs. All of these circumstances require situational forethought and quick thinking/proper action-reaction. There are multiple different "appropriate" responses to multiple different situational scenarios. I would not wander out to confront a mass killer with my CCW, but if I could help to defend a confined space - a classroom or such - from a mass killer (thus saving others) I would do so from a secured defensive position. And if I were to ever encounter a downed LEO, I would do everything in my power to protect that hero from further harm (pulling him/her to safety, calling for help, or staying near his/her side with gun drawn in defensive cover position).

I view a CCW as the ultimate defensive response - sort of like a nice, gentle dog who will bite you if you poke him with a stick. The dog doesn't seek to bite anyone, he's not even a trained "watchdog", but if you insist on poking him with a stick ...

[Purplehood]

The figures that you quoted appear to have come from this site:

http://www.utdallas.edu/ospa/stats/Spri ... allas.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If the average age of all students is 27.17 and the standard deviation is 7.94, that means that about 2/3 of the students are between 19 and 35. Few are younger, of course.

If you look at the demographics of licenses issue in 2008, about 10% are issued to people under 35 (I'm too lazy to do the precise calculation).

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... Issued.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We could argue all day about whether the college demographic would have "few" or "some" or "not many" armed CHL holders. I'm confident that there would be fewer than you find at a meeting of the rod and gun club. That's why psychopaths rarely if ever shoot up rod and gun clubs or police conventions.

If you look at mass murders that occur at places other than "gun-free zones," places where it is legal to carry and the age distribution is the same as the general population, they are rarely stopped by non-LEOs.

That's why I think it's futile to speculate about mass murders.

The rights of the individual student or school employee who chooses to arm himself or herself for personal self-protection are the issue here, IMHO.

And while I'm on the soapbox, college-age women are frequently the targets of rapists, robbers, and jilted "boyfriends." They need to protect themselves more than adult men do.

- Jim

As mentioned before by another poster, it really is the individual at a college campus that a CHL is trying to protect, not the potential mass-shooting victims.

The potential beneficial side-effect of that CHL defending themselves is that it has the potential to prevent additional carnage.

When I was attending UH-D at the tender age of 42 one of my classmates was a young petite-blonde with a nice country-accent. We had a tendency to hang out together and discuss issues over lunch and study-sessions. One day she was explaining how dangerous it was to attend school downtown, reached into her purse and pulled out a massive revolver (just enough for me to see it inside) and told me that she could take care of herself. Of course back then I didn't have the faintest idea what a CHL was or what the law was concerning handguns, but I was impressed.
At the time I was fairly new to the state, so I attributed it to living in Texas and didn't dwell on it.

[seamusTX]

Several women have confided to me that they carried illegally before CHLs were available in Texas; and because it was illegal anyway, they carried everywhere.

I have no way of knowing how widespread the practice was.

- Jim

[Rex B]

I guess Suzannah Hupp (sp?) was carrying illegally in her vehicle the day of the Luby's murders.

[seamusTX]

The "traveling" exception used to be decided at the discretion of police officers. That is why it is intentionally vague.

Also, before the "war on drugs," it was extremely rare for a woman to have her vehicle searched.

- Jim

[Purplehood]

Several women have confided to me that they carried illegally before CHLs were available in Texas; and because it was illegal anyway, they carried everywhere.

I have no way of knowing how widespread the practice was.

- Jim

This probably is not a fair characterization, but I doubt that they would have been prosecuted by a Texas Grand Jury back in the day if they were outed.

[seamusTX]

Carrying illegally is a misdemeanor in most cases, so a grand jury would not have seen the case.

I suspect that most DAs would have dropped the charge if the woman was not doing anything else illegal, like driving drunk. I can't prove that, of course, but people have told me that the police had much more relaxed attitudes about firearms, especially outside the big cities, back in the day.

- Jim

[GaryAdrian]

"If I Only Had a Gun" show on ABC with Diane Sawyer was very one sided and pro gun laws. It never touched on CHL's or any subject on how crime is reduced by CHL's .
Very one sided and very liberal. Still the old teaching, don't do anything and pray that you live. Give them what they want and they will leave you alone. Standard Liberal Teachings. Government will provide for you. You are too stupid to do anything right.

I use to like ABC. I guess Fox is my hope.

[gemini]

The "traveling" exception used to be decided at the discretion of police officers. That is why it is intentionally vague.

Also, before the "war on drugs," it was extremely rare for a woman to have her vehicle searched.

- Jim

Many times the standard for "traveling" was if you were crossing 2 county lines. Back in the day.

Lots of folks made the decision to risk the UCW charge vs the lack of personal protection choice.

[Muhr]

I have always thought the 'legalize carry in a specific area' argument was mostly an issue of the lack of deterrence that exists in "gun free zones" that the cowards find appealing.

Why start shooting up a shopping mall that might have someone armed when you can go rack up a nice easy body count in a university.

You don't make the national news by shooting 2 people and getting your head blown off.

[boomerang]

"We" argue that the police can not protect everyone and that it is the responsibility of every individual to provide for his/her own defense. Then, in the same breath, "we" make the claim that a few armed CHL Licensees, carrying guns, will make our campuses safe. Think about it - If CHL Licensees will make our campuses safe, the addition of more police would do the same thing.

For the sake of argument, let's suppose more police would do the same thing.

For the price of one campus police officer, we could train (and pay the $140 license fee) for more than one hundred armed students. So, even the "more police" proponents have to admit the university could reduce crime much more cost effectively by providing free CHL classes and subsidizing the CHL fee for students than by hiring more campus police officers.