Texas senate approves guns in college classrooms

[FaxModem1]

May 10, 2011
Texas Senate approves guns in college classrooms
Republicans ram through measure by attaching it to spending bill after failing to pass it alone; Universities opposed

In this April 15, 2010 file photo, Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry fires a six shooter filled with blanks as NASCAR driver Colin Braun looks on at an event in downtown Fort Worth, Texas.

In this April 15, 2010 file photo, Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry fires a six shooter filled with blanks as NASCAR driver Colin Braun looks on at an event in downtown Fort Worth, Texas. (AP)

(AP)

AUSTIN, Texas - Republicans in the Texas Senate on Monday approved allowing concealed handgun license holders to carry weapons into public college buildings and classrooms, moving forward on a measure that had stalled until supporters tacked it on to a universities spending bill.

Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, had been unable to muster the votes he needed under Senate rules to pass the issue as its own bill after the measure met stiff resistance from higher education officials, notably from within the University of Texas system.

The measure seemed all but assured easy passage when the legislative session began in January. The Senate had passed a similar bill in 2009 and about 90 lawmakers in the 150-member House had signed on in support this year. But the bill stalled on its first three votes in the Senate and took some maneuvering by Wentworth to get it through.

Supporters hope Monday's vote will help shove the measure past a roadblock in the House, where a similar bill has been stuck without a vote in that chamber with just a few weeks left in the legislative session.

"Campus carry has more momentum than a runaway freight train," said W. Scott Lewis of Students for Concealed Carry, a nationwide group backing the measure.

Arizona passes law allowing guns on campus
Texas set to allow guns on college campuses
Guns on campus gets first approval in Texas

The Senate's 12 Democrats had mostly worked as a block to stop the measure but were powerless to stop it on Monday when all it took was a simple majority in the 31-member chamber to get it added to the spending bill as an amendment.

At that point, Wentworth even picked up an extra vote from Rep. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, who had previously opposed the measure.

Even with large numbers in support, the campus guns measure quickly boiled into one of most controversial issues of the session.

Quick poll
Should Texans with a handgun license be allowed to carry guns in public buildings, college campuses, and classrooms?

Yes
No
Not sure

Vote View results

Supporters call it a critical self-defense measure and guns rights issue. UT-System Chancellor Francisco Cigarroa wrote lawmakers and Gov. Rick Perry outlining worries from university officials that guns on campus will lead to more campus crime and suicides.

Hearings on the measure were dominated by powerful testimony from supporters who had been raped or assaulted on college campuses, and several people who had survived the 2007 mass shooting at Virginia Tech University when a gunman killed 32 people.

Sen. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, who was a student at the University of Texas in 1966 when sniper Charles Whitman killed 12 people and wounded dozens of others, vigorously argued against the guns measure.

She predicted mass chaos if police respond to a call and find several people with guns drawn.

"I can't imagine the horrors if this passes," Zaffirini said.

Wentworth was unmoved. He recalled the shooting at Virginia Tech and said he wants to give students a chance to defend themselves.

"There was no one there to defend themselves in a gun-free zone that was a victim-rich zone," Wentworth said. "I'm trying to avoid that type of situation."

Ironically, it was an amendment by Zaffirini that opened the door for Wentworth's gun measure. Those two had battled in previous weeks when Wentworth tried to amend the guns measure to another universities spending bill she had authored.

She withdrew her bill but offered it up as an amendment on Monday. Minutes after hers was approved, Wentworth introduced his amendment and got the guns measure put on the bill.

After the vote, Wentworth exchanged a few imaginary shots with another lawmaker outside the Senators-only lounge behind the chamber.

Texas passed its concealed handgun license law in 1995. License holders must be at least 21 and pass a training course.

Guns on campus bills have been rejected in at least 23 states since 2007. The bill originally covered private universities as well, but was changed to cover only public institutions of higher education. The Senate also rejected attempts to allow the university boards of regents to decide gun policy on their campuses.

For supporters, Texas is the big prize. Early signs the bill would pass here captured the attention of international media which could not resists the state's larger-than-life reputation and frontier image.

Texas is where concealed handgun license holders are allowed to skip metal detectors in the state Capitol, and Perry made headlines for shooting a coyote on a morning jog last year. Earlier on Monday, senators voted to allow themselves to carry concealed handguns into places the rest of the public cannot, such as churches, restaurants and sporting events.

Perry has said he supports the campus guns measure and is expected to sign it into law if it reaches his desk.

Note: they've also allowed state senators to carry weapons in public places as well.

[Simon_Jester]

Now we just sit back and collect statistics on campus shootings for the next ten years to see what happens.

Honestly, I have no idea what happens. Mass shootings are rare anyway, individual shootings are common- but how much difference does allowing the student body to carry firearms actually make in the individual murder rate?

[SirNitram]

Just classrooms? Because if you want to define 'Bad idea' it involves the copious drinking of college students and adding in weaponry.

[Sarevok]

Just classrooms? Because if you want to define 'Bad idea' it involves the copious drinking of college students and adding in weaponry.

Yeah. This alone shows why allowing guns on campuses is a bad idea. Drunk college students can be a threat to themselves and those around them even without guns. Can you imagine if they can now also now legally pull triggers ?

[Ritterin Sophia]

Just classrooms? Because if you want to define 'Bad idea' it involves the copious drinking of college students and adding in weaponry.

How many college students want to have a gun? Better question, how many of those can afford to purchase a gun? Further how many of those can then afford and pass a CCW course? As this article implies it's necessary. No one is going to accept you into a CCW course with a $100 Derringer, you're talking at minimum an excess of $300 for a decent handgun*, and the classes themselves can cost hundreds of dollars as well. CCW permit owners and NFA owners are the two most responsible gun owners to be found, largely because there's a lot of expense necessary to get the permit.

*If you don't believe me go have a look at some of the popular handgun models, I suggest the Colt M1911, Glock 17, SiG P226, CZ 75, Beretta 92, H&K P30, or the Browning Hi-Power. I'm not as familiar with revolvers so the only one I'm really certain is very popular is the Model 10, though they're all price about the same.

[bobalot]

I can see the potential for assholes using their guns to intimidate other students. They don't have to do anything actually overt, just let people know that they have brought a gun.

Like those teabagging assholes who turned up to town halls with guns.

[wautd]

Is this a late April fools joke? Because I cannot comprehend how such idiotic thing has been considered, let alone been approved. Not that I have high expectations of the Texanistan senate but damn, its like they reach a new low in standards every week.

[Zed]

As a non-American, I was wondering why campuses hold a privileged position? If guns can be carried elsewhere, then why shouldn't one be able to carry them on campus? The only argument I've seen against this specifically is 'drinking', and I'm not sure if it's a good thing to limit everyone's rights because a subgroup has a reputation for drinking.

[Temjin]

How many college students want to have a gun? Better question, how many of those can afford to purchase a gun? Further how many of those can then afford and pass a CCW course? As this article implies it's necessary. No one is going to accept you into a CCW course with a $100 Derringer, you're talking at minimum an excess of $300 for a decent handgun*, and the classes themselves can cost hundreds of dollars as well. CCW permit owners and NFA owners are the two most responsible gun owners to be found, largely because there's a lot of expense necessary to get the permit.

*If you don't believe me go have a look at some of the popular handgun models, I suggest the Colt M1911, Glock 17, SiG P226, CZ 75, Beretta 92, H&K P30, or the Browning Hi-Power. I'm not as familiar with revolvers so the only one I'm really certain is very popular is the Model 10, though they're all price about the same.

I can't say anything about the CCW course, since I know nothing about them.

But I can picture at least a few parents out there footing the bill for a decent handgun and the CCW course. After all, a lot of them are already footing a few grand for to send their kids to university, what's a few hundred more if they figure it will keep them safe from school shootings?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

As a non-American, I was wondering why campuses hold a privileged position? If guns can be carried elsewhere, then why shouldn't one be able to carry them on campus? The only argument I've seen against this specifically is 'drinking', and I'm not sure if it's a good thing to limit everyone's rights because a subgroup has a reputation for drinking.

Here's another argument: Intimidation. College professors and instructors are almost universally against laws like these. Say a student fails an exam. Instead of going to the professor and just having heated words with him, a student might escalate to deadly force because they are angry or depressed over their exam/grades/perception of class conduct. The majority of guns in homes are much more likely to be used stupidly than in self-defense. Yes, that study talks about the home, but it's not much of a stretch to guess that it might apply to guns carried outside the home. Sure, Texas prohibits CCW permits from being issued to people convicted of certain misdemeanors, requires that prospective applicants submit fingerprints and passport photos, be subject to a 10 year background check, and complete (at most) 15 hours of classroom instruction . . . but none of these are necessarily predictive of how an individual will react in the heat-of-the-moment.

[Soontir C'boath]

Unless they changed the age people can apply for the concealed handgun license, only juniors and seniors are allowed to carry a gun so hopefully that narrows the amount of gun holders in the student population.

Better question, how many of those can afford to purchase a gun? Further how many of those can then afford and pass a CCW course?

If it comes down to money, people can pay by credit card.

She predicted mass chaos if police respond to a call and find several people with guns drawn.

Ideally, when the police arrive they can just yell at the "defender" to drop the weapon but frankly the less weapons and potential assailants the police have to deal with, the better.

[Iroscato]

Is this a late April fools joke? Because I cannot comprehend how such idiotic thing has been considered, let alone been approved. Not that I have high expectations of the Texanistan senate but damn, its like they reach a new low in standards every week.

I'm with him. This is the most ridiculuos, short-sighted and idiotic decision made by the Texan governing body I've ever seen, and it takes a hell of a lot to achieve such an elite standing. Yet in a way, it's also almost funny. It is so stupid I can't help but laugh, in both despair, disbelief and mockery of their stupidity.

As a non-American, I was wondering why campuses hold a privileged position? If guns can be carried elsewhere, then why shouldn't one be able to carry them on campus? The only argument I've seen against this specifically is 'drinking', and I'm not sure if it's a good thing to limit everyone's rights because a subgroup has a reputation for drinking.

Here's another argument: Intimidation. College professors and instructors are almost universally against laws like these. Say a student fails an exam. Instead of going to the professor and just having heated words with him, a student might escalate to deadly force because they are angry or depressed over their exam/grades/perception of class conduct. The majority of guns in homes are much more likely to be used stupidly than in self-defense. Yes, that study talks about the home, but it's not much of a stretch to guess that it might apply to guns carried outside the home. Sure, Texas prohibits CCW permits from being issued to people convicted of certain misdemeanors, requires that prospective applicants submit fingerprints and passport photos, be subject to a 10 year background check, and complete (at most) 15 hours of classroom instruction . . . but none of these are necessarily predictive of how an individual will react in the heat-of-the-moment.

Quite. The pupils and students here in Britain are bad enogu hto teachers, there is very little respect, really. If you threw a fully loaded gun into that nice little equation, I really don't want to think about it. What are these fucktards thinking?!

And I love the way they seem to sneak it into legislation on the back of a spending bill, because they couldn't get it in alone. It's like they want the amount of gun crime to increase in the US.
Self defence? Pah.

[Zed]

As a non-American, I was wondering why campuses hold a privileged position? If guns can be carried elsewhere, then why shouldn't one be able to carry them on campus? The only argument I've seen against this specifically is 'drinking', and I'm not sure if it's a good thing to limit everyone's rights because a subgroup has a reputation for drinking.

Here's another argument: Intimidation. College professors and instructors are almost universally against laws like these. Say a student fails an exam. Instead of going to the professor and just having heated words with him, a student might escalate to deadly force because they are angry or depressed over their exam/grades/perception of class conduct. The majority of guns in homes are much more likely to be used stupidly than in self-defense. Yes, that study talks about the home, but it's not much of a stretch to guess that it might apply to guns carried outside the home. Sure, Texas prohibits CCW permits from being issued to people convicted of certain misdemeanors, requires that prospective applicants submit fingerprints and passport photos, be subject to a 10 year background check, and complete (at most) 15 hours of classroom instruction . . . but none of these are necessarily predictive of how an individual will react in the heat-of-the-moment.

A student intimidating a teacher doesn't seem that different from an employee intimidating an employer or a customer intimidating a salesman to me - all these situations are unacceptable, and they're an argument against the permission of gun ownership in general - and I agree with that general sentiment. What I want to know is, if you're already allowing concealed carry permits in the first place, then what are the grounds for specific exceptions for college campuses? Intimidation, stupid uses of weapons, drunks being around weapons, etc, are all good arguments against firearm ownership in general - but they don't seem to justify banning firearm ownership on college campuses specifically.

[TheHammer]

Is this a late April fools joke? Because I cannot comprehend how such idiotic thing has been considered, let alone been approved. Not that I have high expectations of the Texanistan senate but damn, its like they reach a new low in standards every week.

Well, as noted in the article, the throught process behind it is to prevent the next asshole with an inferioirity complex and mental instability from shooting up a compass such as the Virginia Tech Shooter, Arizona congressional shooter, columbine etc. The idea being that if at least some of the students were armed, trained, and competant, such shootings end much sooner and with much less deaths. It's also the same idea that some proponents put behind allowing everyone conceiled carry - because you don't know who is armed, criminals can't be sure of easy targets. Crime goes down and everyone is a little more polite to one another lol.

The flip side of that as some have said, is that some assholes may use it for intimidation. At which point you can try to go to authorities, or arm yourself which obviously can lead to dire consequences as well...

[Aasharu]

To play Devil's Advocate for a bit, wouldn't it be better to have ten cases of reported intimidation, with the perpetrator in question being fined, reprimanded, and having their concealed carry permit taken away, then it would be to have one indiscriminate shooting that kills a dozen people?

[Hawkwings]

The difference I'm seeing is that in college, there is a very clear power structure where students are at the bottom, and professors are above them. This exists to a lesser extent in workplaces.

Though I do think the intimidation reason is bogus. Once the student leaves, all you have to do is call up campus security and have the kid arrested.

Also, colleges are known for having big alcoholic parties on or near campus, with many students attending. You're not going to get that kind of student density and alcohol density anywhere besides maybe a nightclub. Texas doesn't allow you to carry in an establishment where 51%+ of the profit is from sale of alcoholic beverages to be consumed on premises.

[Alphawolf55]

As a non-American, I was wondering why campuses hold a privileged position? If guns can be carried elsewhere, then why shouldn't one be able to carry them on campus? The only argument I've seen against this specifically is 'drinking', and I'm not sure if it's a good thing to limit everyone's rights because a subgroup has a reputation for drinking.

Here's another argument: Intimidation. College professors and instructors are almost universally against laws like these. Say a student fails an exam. Instead of going to the professor and just having heated words with him, a student might escalate to deadly force because they are angry or depressed over their exam/grades/perception of class conduct. The majority of guns in homes are much more likely to be used stupidly than in self-defense. Yes, that study talks about the home, but it's not much of a stretch to guess that it might apply to guns carried outside the home. Sure, Texas prohibits CCW permits from being issued to people convicted of certain misdemeanors, requires that prospective applicants submit fingerprints and passport photos, be subject to a 10 year background check, and complete (at most) 15 hours of classroom instruction . . . but none of these are necessarily predictive of how an individual will react in the heat-of-the-moment.

Can you provide evidence that physical threats and violence towards college teachers is a regular enough occurence that adding guns to the mix would reasonably lead to further violence? Because if not, it just sounds like paranoia.

[Simon_Jester]

To play Devil's Advocate for a bit, wouldn't it be better to have ten cases of reported intimidation, with the perpetrator in question being fined, reprimanded, and having their concealed carry permit taken away, then it would be to have one indiscriminate shooting that kills a dozen people?

What if it's not ten cases of aggravated assault? What if it's a hundred cases of assault, and ten shootings?

Mass shootings like Columbine and Virginia Tech don't happen very often- when was the last major school shooting in Texas? The only one I know of is Charles Whitman, and that was over forty years ago- one which masses of armed students wouldn't have done all that much good for.

Whereas in a state the size of Texas, you can bet with great confidence that students will threaten people with handguns every year, and there will very probably be campus murders with firearms much more often than there would have been mass shootings.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people..." and for precisely this reason, only a madman would leave a revolver in the hands of a distraught child. Which is a fairly good description of the mental processes of the "how DARE you give me an F!" college student.

A student intimidating a teacher doesn't seem that different from an employee intimidating an employer or a customer intimidating a salesman to me - all these situations are unacceptable, and they're an argument against the permission of gun ownership in general - and I agree with that general sentiment. What I want to know is, if you're already allowing concealed carry permits in the first place, then what are the grounds for specific exceptions for college campuses? Intimidation, stupid uses of weapons, drunks being around weapons, etc, are all good arguments against firearm ownership in general - but they don't seem to justify banning firearm ownership on college campuses specifically.

College campuses are full of unusually immature people, even before mass alcohol consumption is factored in. There will be a significant minority of students on campus who will use guns for direct or indirect intimidation purposes, against professors or against fellow students. And because of the sheer numbers of adolescents on the campus, that minority will add up to a large number of incidents per year.

The difference I'm seeing is that in college, there is a very clear power structure where students are at the bottom, and professors are above them. This exists to a lesser extent in workplaces.

Though I do think the intimidation reason is bogus. Once the student leaves, all you have to do is call up campus security and have the kid arrested.

Hawkwings, when someone barges into your office waving a gun, it is not okay, it is not a bogus concern. Because at that point there is a very real danger to your life, one which the typical college professor (hell, the typical human being) should not be expected to have to deal with. College professors didn't sign up to have half-crazed students waving guns at them.

And should that happen, there is a very good chance of a shooting- anyone in a wound-up and crazy enough state to carry a gun to see their professor is quite possibly wound-up and crazy enough to pull the trigger.

Anyone who is not themselves a fool will take the prospect of being the victim of assault with a deadly weapon rather seriously.

Can you provide evidence that physical threats and violence towards college teachers is a regular enough occurence that adding guns to the mix would reasonably lead to further violence? Because if not, it just sounds like paranoia.

Can you provide evidence that physical threats and violence towards students is a regular enough occurence that adding guns to the mix would reasonably lead to reduced violence? Because if not, the law itself just sounds like paranoia.

This issue cuts both ways- the presence of firearms on campus makes threats by unstable students more credible at the same time that (hopefully) it makes mass campus shootings less credible. But mass campus shootings only occur in a given state once every few decades- mundane cases of assault with a deadly weapon are far more common.

[Alphawolf55]

Can you provide evidence that physical threats and violence towards students is a regular enough occurence that adding guns to the mix would reasonably lead to reduced violence? Because if not, the law itself just sounds like paranoia.

This issue cuts both ways- the presence of firearms on campus makes threats by unstable students more credible at the same time that (hopefully) it makes mass campus shootings less credible. But mass campus shootings only occur in a given state once every few decades- mundane cases of assault with a deadly weapon are far more common.

I don't have to prove in any way that guns will lessen violence because I did not make any claim that they will. Terwyn claimed College faculty are concerned that if students have guns, people will start shooting teachers. If that's true, there should be evidence that students commonly enough do threaten and attack teachers for the addition of guns to make things worse (unless people are arguing that guns will make people who are otherwise peaceful violent) otherwise it's paranoia, just as believing a school shooting itself will happen is paranoia

Now I do believe that the issue of campus violence at parties is more real and should be the main concern not teachers feeling eve. We already know that alcohol makes people more prone to violence and stupid behavior, we know violence is a regular enough occurence in dorm rooms plus at parties and we know that people get ridiculously drunk on campus. Thus we know that giving those people guns is a ridiculously bad idea and that at the least the law should position that anyone caught drinking while carrying is an automatic arrest. That to me should be the main focus not whether teachers piss off their students since like pointed to previously, that can happen in any high stress situation.

[Zed]

A student intimidating a teacher doesn't seem that different from an employee intimidating an employer or a customer intimidating a salesman to me - all these situations are unacceptable, and they're an argument against the permission of gun ownership in general - and I agree with that general sentiment. What I want to know is, if you're already allowing concealed carry permits in the first place, then what are the grounds for specific exceptions for college campuses? Intimidation, stupid uses of weapons, drunks being around weapons, etc, are all good arguments against firearm ownership in general - but they don't seem to justify banning firearm ownership on college campuses specifically.

College campuses are full of unusually immature people, even before mass alcohol consumption is factored in. There will be a significant minority of students on campus who will use guns for direct or indirect intimidation purposes, against professors or against fellow students. And because of the sheer numbers of adolescents on the campus, that minority will add up to a large number of incidents per year.

Wouldn't people of the same age-group be immature in general, and not just on college campuses? If this is the case, why not simply put an age requirement on the permits?

[Simon_Jester]

That would probably make a lot of sense.

I doubt it would pass in Texas, but it would make a lot of sense.

[Alphawolf55]

I don't know if it would be constitutional though. Alcohol is one thing, but I don't think you can restrict citizen's constitutional rights on age.

[dragon]

Well my female coworker is attending college at night to pick up her second masters. She also has a concealed carry permit but has to leave it behind when she hits the campus. Which if you think about is weird when the state by giving her the license says she's trained and can be trusted with the weapon.

Sure the young freshman might not be wanting to have guns but the older returning students might.

[Gil Hamilton]

Like in chemistry, concentration matters too, Zed. A college campus doesn't just have the elements of immature students, high emotions, intoxicating substances, et cetera. It concentrates all of them like a cell. There is plenty of stuff that happens on college campuses that are far much less likely to happen elsewhere not just because you've got a drunk stressed out guy, but because you've got one hundred of them in close proximity. An example of this is the greatly increased chance of substance induced rape on college campuses which can absolutely occur elsewhere but seem to happen at a much greater rate on college campuses because the campus concentrates a whole bunch of people together who are likely to do it and even in some cases provides an environment where getting a girl black out drunk and screwing her is not a crime but a goal. Some things happen not because the elements are there, but because the elements occur in sufficient concentration that it becomes likely to happen rather than a rare occurrance it might be elsewhere.

This is why most campuses have (largely unenforcable) "Dry Campus" policies, where they forbid alcohol on campus for the above reason. We could use your argument, Zed, that is an argument to ban alcohol in general, but it isn't really, because a college campus is not a general environment. I used the analogy of a cell, which I think is appropriate, because the campus provide a sufficiently closed environment where excessive drinking (something that happens everywhere) is combined with a large number of people doing exactly the same thing and one upping each other along with all the other stuff that college concentrates. So schools have a good reason to at least try to ban alcohol from their campus, even though no one is suggesting banning it everywhere.

The same logic applies to concealed handguns. Schools have a policy against them because they don't want a concentrated amount of firearms thrown into that cell, whereas in general mixed society, it isn't so much of a problem. What the bill does is remove the ability of schools to forbid students from concealed carry.

Now guns are almost certainly less prevelant than alcohol, even in Texas, but at the same time, have you noticed how often when you hear a story about a guy getting drunk and shooting someone over an insult, the shooter is almost certainly part of a group? It seems like it's never someone alone getting insulted and shooting someone; the shooter is typically saving face in front of his friends and even being encouraged by them. People are much more likely to not escalate to violence if it is just them, from throwing a punch to drawing a gun, both due to lack of support and also lack of need to prove themselves. The second is a biggie, because students, particularly young men, on college campuses are enormously prone to fighting because their friends are around, alcohol is around, and the reasons men fight are in much higher concentrations (girls, sports, out macho'ing the other guy, et cetera). In such an environment, how many handguns thrown in the mix do you need to turn what is normally bruised body/egos into lethal situations?

[Anguirus]

Mass shootings like Columbine and Virginia Tech don't happen very often- when was the last major school shooting in Texas? The only one I know of is Charles Whitman, and that was over forty years ago- one which masses of armed students wouldn't have done all that much good for.

There was an incident last year on my campus (UTAustin) that people thought at the time was the next Whitman, but turned out to just be a highly elaborate suicide. Shamefully, this was used to ram through this bill, despite the fact that other students with guns could only have worsened the situation.

Keep in mind, there was a real fight over this bill. Almost all the testimony was against the bill. Several legislators were convinced to flip their votes from "yes" to "no." It was sent back to committee three times, and a stunning variety of dirty tricks were employed by the bill's sponsors to get it this far. This was a war between ideology and common sense.

Perhaps the most illuminating testimony was offered by a behavioral scientist of my acquaintance, Dr. Molly Cummings. I think she's absolutely right...this will hurt the school, and it makes me feel less safe.