Texas Lawmakers Pass a Bill Allowing Guns at Colleges | Hacker News Reader

Texas Lawmakers Pass a Bill Allowing Guns at Colleges

nytimes.com

30 pointsel_duderino66 comments

I think this makes sense. At least in my own experience attending a university in a high crime area, there were a number of students who legally owned firearms (off campus storage), had obtained a concealed carry permit from the state, and practiced often but were not allowed to protect themselves on campus. Several times my students were robbed or even kidnapped on campus. The criminals loved having so many soft targets with new electronics.

A student group petitioned the school president and the state legislature to allow licensed guns on campus. They were told to instead walk in groups at night. As a result several enterprising robbers started carrying flex-ties so they could rob large groups and leave them face down and bereft of their belongings and dignity.

And you never thought about just transferring out of Mogadishu?

He wasn't in Mogadishu. Why would you assume that?

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/student-robbed-at-gunpoint-insi...

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/georgia-tech-student-mu...

http://patch.com/georgia/midtown/police-seek-atlantic-statio...

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/ga-tech-students-robbed...

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/sixth-atlanta-college-student-r...

Well I left Atlanta 3 years ago and don't miss it, mainly for those kinds of reasons. I had the choice and ability to move elsewhere but a lot of people don't. Is it really reasonable to restart your graduate studies in another state because you are worried about crime? Or is it more reasonable to be allowed the same rights and responsibilities concerning self defense that exist across the street from your university?

A lot of students don't realize how dangerous their colleges are until they have been there awhile. Administrations do a good job quieting down stories and keeping them out of the paper.

Wouldn't a better long-term solution be to deal with the underlying causes of the rampant crime? You can arm everyone, but that won't actually stop crime, just move it somewhere else or force it to evolve. I mean, in the extreme the thieves could just ambush and kill / severely wound you before you had a chance to draw your gun. An arms race is never the answer.

Of course dealing with crime intelligently would involve a lot of tough questions about our economy and society, so I can certainly see how it is easier to just hand everyone a gun and call it a day. But I think we should at least advocate for a real solution.

I'm all for a real solution, but in the meantime, I would rather not be considered an ideal target due to my school's policies. If I had the option to carry a gun as a college student, at least that would put me on par with other people in the city. I wouldn't even really need to carry a gun; the mere fact that criminals no longer consider me a guaranteed soft target would be an improvement.

Folks don't risk death for an iPhone. Crime would be diminished, this is clear from statistics. Its not an arms race, because the criminals' survival is not at stake, just some ready cash. This was illustrated by the drastic drop in crime when cocaine became much cheaper - nobody was willing to get killed for it any more.

However the citizens' survival IS at stake. Folks often argue that the threat of capital punishment doesn't work. Of course it does, criminals are using it every day. We just need to reverse that social pressure.

Criminals aren't brave. They tend to flow downhill like water and find the weakest, least resistant person to target. During the occasion that someone attempted to rob me they had their gun out first and ready - yet when I went to draw my legally carried firearm they turned and fled immediately. They don't want a fight when they can just wait five minutes and find someone who won't.

I completely agree about addressing the underlying problems with crime. There's an immense spectrum of thought on how to do that, some policies are actually retrograde in practice, and in the meantime until utopia is realized I have to go about my life.

An arms race is the answer because the people who are in the greatest need of protecting will be able to use arms - technology - to address the issue of their own relative frailty. If my 69 year old osteoarthritic mother is threatened by a criminal because he likes the shade of her Camry she isn't going to pontificate root causes, she's going to produce the Airweight revolver from her console and I guarantee you her aim is much better than a thug's.

I don't know if you've noticed, but we're running out of frontier.

I went to college in the Bronx. No guns allowed there, but plenty of people holding up defenseless college students.

As a non-american, this is really weird to me.

I grew up around plenty of guns at my friends - they were moose hunting rifles mostly. And they were under lock and key unless actively used for hunting, with guns locked in one location, ammunition locked in another (at least one of them in safe).

The police where I live now (Ireland) don't carry guns except for a few special units.

The fact that wearing guns is something that is every day business and that you can even discuss about is so alien to me that it is fascinating to see. I am glad I dont live in a society with those values though.

More guns means more people killed by guns. That said, I don't know the solution once you already have a proliferation of guns in your society. Personally I don't believe that maximizing the saturation of guns is a long-term solution but I recognize that it is a difficult situation.

That's probably not true. More firearms can easily mean fewer deaths. An armed society is a polite society. Historically the most heavily-armed old west towns were the ones with the lowest death rates from violence.

My main problem with this is.. why "armed" have to equal "lethal firearms"? Why no more R&D into nonlethal options (something like an improved taser?).

I don't want to own a gun, because a gun is not effective unless you're willing to use it (in a last resort), and i don't want to do that... I want to own a Taser though (for self-defense).

In the American Constitutional case, 'arms' meant firearms. In some newly constituted society you could make a different rule I suppose.

And of course nothing keeps you from carrying a taser now.

There are generally much stricter regulations on non-lethal weapons than there are on guns, so the OP might have to be careful in his choice of taser (depending on where he lives).

I grew up in Texas and was always surprised by how cautious I needed to be with my boy scout issued knife -- carrying it in Houston would have been a felony, but carrying a glock was permitted everywhere. I remember my mom having to carry a can of bear repellant instead of mace for the same reason.

I don't live in the U.S., but you're right that it's defined that way in the American Constitution, and as giaour answers, non-lethal weapons are more strictly controlled.

The main thing preventing me from carrying a taser now is price :) (they're really expensive in my country, the cheapest one, C2, costs 950 dollars - http://www.silvercat.com.uy/pistolaselecc2.html)

It's a really hard problem, and even current Tasers are only "less lethal" like every other vaguely effective alternative I'm aware of. So, yeah, there's R&D, but sometimes nature just isn't cooperative.

I'll note that in the up to 2.5 million times a year a gun is used in the US for self-defense (as of some years ago), more than 90% of the time it isn't fired (or hits, but I think it was fired), but the user indeed needs to be willing to fire it if the simple threat of lethal force is not sufficient.

"An armed society is a polite society."

I don't buy this.

Here's a town that has required every head of household to own and maintain a gun since 1982. When they passed that law people predicted that neighbors would settle their differences with shootouts, but instead - in 25 years - their crime rate plummeted and they haven't had a single gun murder - https://www.google.com/search?q=guntown+usa

You don't have to buy it for it to be true.

| That's probably not true. *Citation needed

How about Baltimore, today? Completely gun-controlled. Most violent city in America. Call 'strawman' and I'll respond 'illustrative example'.

I'm pleasantly surprised by the feedback on this so far.

As a CHL holder in Texas, I think this law makes sense. Having taken the training, which I think should be a prerequisite for gun ownership IMO, my threshold for when I would brandish my weapon is insanely high now.

Mainly, the course emphasized the huge impact after the situation ends. You may be the one who's dead, as heroic acts rarely end picture-perfect. You'll have killed another person, with a family who's life is wrecked as a result. You'll likely lose tons of money fighting the court cases that'll surely emerge.

Before, I was brought up with the southern notion that stealing a TV warranted shooting on sight. Having actually talked through scenarios, taken classes, and prepared for the unforeseen possibilities, I'd rather avoid using a weapon unless a death is imminent.

> which I think should be a prerequisite for gun ownership IMO

only the Second Amendment stops you, and people like you.

> my threshold for when I would brandish my weapon is insanely high now.

only... Texas is about to pass Open Carry.

Actually, I don't see how the 2nd amendment is incompatible with a training requirement. It specifies the need for a well regulated militia, and I disagree that a training requirement constitutes an infringement. It's funny how 2nd Amendment boosters seem to have no problem denying gun privileges to ex-felons and the like, even though the Constitution makes no such restriction and there's no question taht even people locked up in prison have first amendment rights. I remember being at a legal symposum a few years ago where a lawyer cheekily offered a paper arguing that 2nd amendment rights must extend to illegal aliens, which was met with consternation from some of the more 'patriotic' types.

> even though the Constitution makes no such restriction

Please don't try to pontificate about the Constitution if you have no idea what it actually says. The fifth amendment indicates that you can be deprived of liberty after due process of law. That is to say, after you get convicted of a felony, you may have certain rights restricted.

That's a curious reading. Its about due process, and loss of life, liberty or property is forbidden without due process. I guess you can read that to mean loss of liberty is allowed for criminals. Did they mean temporary incarceration, or lifetime loss of ALL liberties? Its not clear to me. Sigh.

It's really not a curious reading at all; the due process clauses in the fifth and fourteenth amendments are the basis for the constitutionality of laws that deprive felons of certain rights.

> Did they mean temporary incarceration, or lifetime loss of ALL liberties?

Possibly either, but it's entirely possible to have those liberties restored by court order.

Personally, I'd rather have open carry than concealed.

If you are open carrying, I can simply leave your presence. Or I can request that you leave if I am a store owner, etc.

The reason why the NRA supports concealed carry is so that non-carriers can't call people out.

Are you allowed to refuse service to legally carried firearms? Can a library, or a bookstore, or a barber have a "no guns" rule? What about a bar (because frankly if spaghetti westerns have taught me anything it's that guns and alcohol make for interesting situations).

You're generally allowed to refuse service for any reason you want, provided it's not specifically outlawed (for example, if you run a hotel you can't refuse service on grounds of race).

Indeed, for example in the UK it'd be race/gender/religion as things you cannot discriminate against. However in my experience Americans say things like "interfering with the rights guaranteed by the constitution" so I wondered if that argument held for something similar to anti-discrimination

I learned that Texas Code 30.06 [1] allows a business to place a prominently displayed sign not allowing even CHL holders from bringing guns onto the premise.

Whereas, without that sign, CHL holders would be allowed to carry weapons, but non-CHL holders would not. (Of course, there are exceptions to places of worship, fairs, etc.)

[1]: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/7/30/30.06

It's notice of trespass, rather than "not allowing".

A business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, and that derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption as determined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code. A person with a CHL commits a third degree felony if they enter such a premise with a firearm.

Brandishing and open carry are entirely different things. Take the class!

I took the class, when you were still in high school.

thanks.

And? Still confusing Open Carry with Brandishing? Explain please.

Brandishing is intentional failure to conceal.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm

Texas Penal Code Chapter 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place.

Open Carry is intentional failure to conceal.

The "Open Carry" bill would literally strike the following from Texas Penal Code

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a)A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not: (1)on the person’s own premises, or premises under the person’s control, or with permission of the premises owner; or (2)inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person’s control.

As well as the text in 46.035 (cited above), and several other places in the TPL.

Reference: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/pdf/HB00...

Senate bill is here: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/pdf/SB00...

> I'm pleasantly surprised by the feedback on this so far.

Why are you surprised? If gun carry is allowed and common then any gun-free zone (expect few well guarded places like court rooms) is completely insane.

As a Swede this seems completely medeival to me and I have troubles understanding how anyone can support such a law.

But since it is the US we're talking about, I'm not surprised. The US just have 1 additional reason why I wouldn't even consider moving there.

Is Sweden one of those countries where harming a robber inside your own house can put you in jail?

Yes :P

At least if you are doing unnecessary damage to the person. For example, if you are just defending yourself, it is okay. If the robber was not armed and you shoot him/her down, you will be prosecuted for that.

The US is extremely large and extremely varied. I used to deal with these sorts of existential threats every day, but by moving to a city with more than double the cost of living I was able to escape most of it. Some folks are luckier and are born in more peaceful societies, you should be thankful!

Kenya is far away from Texas but I wish some of the 147 students who were killed in their hostels on 2nd of April could shoot back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garissa_University_College_atta...

Why would we trust people with a concealed handgun license to carry all over town, but force them to go unarmed on campus? And before anyone says "alcohol," carrying drunk is already a separate crime.

I don't know. Forget being safe, I'm reminded of how my college told me I couldn't keep a fencing foil in my dorm room because it was a "weapon" and I'm somewhat sympathetic. Especially considering students with baseball bats and such were never told anything similar. I don't think college should come with a "only approved hobbies allowed" sign.

I need a browser plugin that replaces guns with teddy bears. Because outside of hunting, sport, policing or warfare I don't know that guns have much of a role in society. On campus they would seem to replace a thumb in the mouth or a plush toy in the hand of someone with major insecurities.

So what are your thoughts on http://web.mit.edu/mitprc/www/index.html ?

Doesn't range shooting count as sport?

Totally in favour of students learning how to shoot guns or bows or fence with swords. Why wait for college? With proper supervision these are all appropriate at high school.

A campus should be inclusive and non-intimidating. If you want women, minorities, foreign students to feel comfortable and secure, then arming self-entitled white males to strut around campus with deadly weapons for no reason other than pandering to their own deep insecurities is not the way to do it.

Wow, I had no idea this law forbid women and minorities from getting concealed carry permits and/or carrying on campus (for better or worse, an alien generally has to be a permanent resident to get a permit).

You don't suppose some of those women want to be able to protect themselves from the real rape culture?

I also wonder how these "women, minorities, foreign students" would even know that others are carrying concealed weapons. (Further, a lot of us wonder how these special snowflakes will cope when they graduate and are in the real world, after being coddled all their lives.)

What threat model are you picturing for rape that pulling out a pistol would be an effective response? Even "jump-from-the-bushes" rape (which is a pretty small proportion of rape) tends to involve close distances. Pulling a pistol on someone within arms reach is tricky even if you are sober and at about equal strength.

(I am not a martial arts or combat systems instructor of any kind.)

Well, somehow it nonetheless works for a whole lot of women/people in general; the statistic I've read is that the average gun fight occurs at 7 feet of distance. And of course one of the points here is that a gun is an equalizer for people with a strength difference.

Consider the Zimmerman-Martin case. Martin, taller and with the advantage of hitting first, was on top of Zimmerman, pounding his head into a concrete sidewalk, and Zimmerman nonetheless was able to draw his gun and shoot Martin.

For that matter, crypto too. What, do they have something to hide?

I don't believe you can honestly compare hiding one's own communications for the sake of privacy with carrying a wartime weapon in a non-hostile public place.

>carrying a wartime weapon in a non-hostile public place.

You're dragging some baggage in there. Of course a wartime anything is inappropriate in a "non-hostile" place. How about a peacetime weapon in a public place of indeterminate hostility?

For that matter: doesn't the incompletely-enforced prohibition of personal arms make a place inherently hostile?

Now .. the cold war showed that when everybody has a nuke then nobody will ever live to tell the tale from that one guy, who build a gun wilding drone.

The problem is that crime is so high, and crime is so high, because society basically provide those guys with high-income-guaranteed-protected-by-the-state-zones (drug trade). And the drug trade is part of your way of life. You cant preach protestant ethics and expect those who fall short to stay in that harsh reality that is created.

Even if everybody gets a free wrench, if the aqueduct is pumping water into your houses attic, you never gonna have a dry day. But you gonna have people bleeding from there heads where the wrenches hit.

Armed campus police would make sense though.

Once upon a time at an US college:

http://filmmakeriq.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Once-Upon-...

They should allow it in schools as well. Would stop bullying quite quick.

Out of interest, do kids get taught weapons handling and how to shoot at high school in the US?

[NB I'm asking because some kids get taught these things in the UK]

High schools in most states don't have shooting programs any more. Also no wood shop, or metal shop, or automotive classes. Budget cuts.

Youth groups do the training now. My son is a shooting instructor, was Director of shooting sports at our local camp for years.

The Combined Cadet Force is pretty popular at private schools in the UK - the school my son is at even has a few ex-squaddies on the staff. It's pretty heavily subsidized by the Army - they get loads of gear to take home (not weapons, obviously) have weekly training sessions and weekend and week long camps a few times a year.

Very cool! Where I live most youth programs try to distance themselves from the military, which is a pity and borderline shameful. Anyway, our Scout camp has a 24-station shooting range and trap station. Also archery for the younger folk.

I'll look into the CCF, sounds exciting!

There's a Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (JROTC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junior_Reserve_Officers%27_Tra...) program that's reasonably popular in many parts of the US, and weapons training is a popular part of it. When I did it in the late '70s it was small bore/.22LR in the winter when getting out wasn't so practical, and there was an opportunity to go to a "summer camp" where you would practice with real service rifles, practice grenades (they wouldn't let the young ones try out real ones), putting on a gas mask in a tear gas chamber, basically a junior boot camp sort of thing. My parents were no fun at all and wouldn't let me attend the latter :-( which due to eyesight was the closest I ever could get to the real thing ).

And of course a rifle team, in which I had a lot of fun, small bore rifles, 50 feet, the "10" was a dot the size of the hole a needle makes in a piece of paper. Quite challenging and two years of early morning practice really improved my marksmanship, even got a nifty and 100% authentic Expert marksmanship badge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marksmanship_Badges_(United_St...). We on the team helped with the safety monitoring and instruction in the winter rifle marksmanship and that was very worthwhile as well, teaching a novice well enough to get a Marksman badge was a great experience and generally useful for life.

In fact, teaching others was one of the things JROTC explicitly taught, as they pointed out the Army has to constantly teach a lot of people all sorts of things. Definitely one of the most useful things I learned in high school.

The CCF used to be called the "Junior Division of the Officers Training Corp" - but I think they renamed it to try and remove the association of public (i.e. private) school -> posh -> officer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com