I’ll say my piece before the DT starts blocking comments again followed by a witty post.
I thank Caleb for being one of the few people here who are actually willing to take into account both sides of the argument and take facts into consideration. It is a commendable trait and we definitely have a shortage of that type. If I may I would like to address some of your concerns:
” The freedom we have in America is not limitless; everybody operates within the constraints in the law because the government listens to the will of the majority, and occasionally the minority in civil rights and civil liberties cases.”
True, we do not have unlimited freedoms. But this begs the question: Where do we draw the line? Where is the point of equilibrium? From my perspective, if you take into account current Federal gun control laws as a whole, we’ve gone past the point of what I would deem to be an “acceptable” compromise for all Americans. While the scope of current laws are being widened (e.g concealed and open carry laws), the laws themselves are getting stricter (complete ban in the manufacturing and importing of certain guns that have little involvement in crime), and now D.C is talking about universal licensing and a ban on most semi-automatic guns.
There is another inherent problem that lies with the overused argument that “most students don’t want guns on campus” and using majority opinion to justify action. America’s principles do not lie in the notion of protecting majority opinion. In fact, the provisions in the Constitution serves to protect the MINORITY opinion. The 1st Amendment is not intended to protect speech that we all like. It is intended to protect speech that we DON’T like, and to protect dissent. So if we were to talk about principles, is it morally justified for the majority to infringe upon the liberties of a minority, with the premise being there is no empirical evidence to suggest that said liberty causes more harm than good? I hope to continue this conversation with you Caleb.
Now to pick on the article itself: “Though many licensed gun carriers are responsible people, a university is a place of action and emotion, and crimes of passion should be of primary concern for law enforcement.”
I have talked to Chief Dahlstrom during the UTPD “Be Safe” week, and he openly admitted that he believes there is no evidence to suggest that there will be statistically significant increase in violent crime on campus should campus carry pass. I have witnesses. =)
In any case, if our school was such a volatile environment as you claim to be, then why haven’t we seen “crimes of passion” take place with other weapons, such as knives and fists? If someone were to really want to use a gun to commit this “crime of passion”, what is a “No Guns Allowed” sign going to do to stop him/her?
“Being allowed to carry a gun on campus is dangerous not just because it would increase the prevalence of weapons on campus, but because it would change the overall atmosphere of the school.”
Would it? Have you asked the students in all public universities in Utah if their “learning environment” has been adversely affected ever since campus carry was allowed there? It would help to do some research as opposed to resorting to hypothetical scenarios.
Let’s change up your claim a tad bit: “Being allowed to carry a gun on ______ is dangerous not just because it would increase the prevalence of weapons on ______, but because it would change the overall atmosphere of the ______.” Replace the blanks with any of the following: Movie theater, bank, grocery store, The Capitol. This same argument was used against concealed-carry in general in the mid-90s. Considering the widespread adoption of concealed-carry in general, it’s pretty clear that this argument does not hold water.
“A professor in the UT System, speaking on the basis of anonymity because of her state employee status, said this bill would directly affect her grading policy (UT faculty and staff, as state employees, are prohibited from speaking out for or against any bill). In knowing that her students would be permitted to be armed, the professor said she would be scared to grade fairly.”
What rational reason would someone who has gone through the painstaking process of getting a CHL have in sacrificing it, his/her college education, and most of his/her life, over a relatively light matter as a test? It is on the verge of insult to assume that CHL holders are such naive, immature, emotionally volatile creatures. Again, what do current laws do to stop someone Hellbent on vengeance from committing that crime? Again, this doesn’t only affect students, but faculty as well. Let’s do suppose someone wants revenge on a teacher over a grade dispute. Would that person try to commit such an act knowing the TEACHER might be armed as well??
“And outside the classroom, though the bill would attempt to limit handguns at sporting events, it would not limit them from areas right outside the events, where the sinister combination of alcohol consumption and heated fan interaction can spark violence.”
This is again where your lack of research shows. CHL holders are prohibited from consuming alcohol while carrying, period.
I’ve got to go. If someone really wants to have a dialogue on this matter, I’m available on Facebook.
“There is a reason the 17 other states that brought up the issue all shot down the legislation.”
There’s also a reason 12 schools have allowed campus carry for years, without ANY incident to date.
So what’s the verdict? I think the second argument, the one made in the comments, is obviously much better articulated and coherent. What are the repercussions of possibly legalizing concealed carry on Texas college campuses – are there any? Do we really believe that people who are concerned enough with the law to get a concealed carry license are emotionally unstable enough to completely disregard the law and shoot up their teachers and peers? Would legalizing campus carry adversely affect Austin as well as the rest of the state?
