TexasCHLforum.com

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.

seamusTX wrote: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

seamusTX wrote: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

seamusTX wrote: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

seamusTX wrote: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

"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.