Deer Hunter
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,097
A paper I wrote for an english project. Critique as needed, and dont sugarcoat it. There are probably things wrong with it.
But I hope those on this forum understand and appreciate it.
Nicholas Kennedy
April 6, 2008
Concealed Carry on Campus: The Responsibility of Self Defense
There was a young chemistry major who attended a major university in Texas, a university that enjoyed yelling immensely. This student, a sophomore, lived in an off-campus apartment complex a quarter-mile from campus. Every Thursday, after eating an early dinner, this student would walk to a 6:00 P.M. chemistry lab. While walking to the lab one night, the student stopped for traffic, hurriedly pressing the WALK button on the traffic-light post. A group of people, also students, waited on the other side of the street, eagerly eyeing the red hand and waiting for their chance to traverse the street. The Chemistry student, while gingerly watching the red hand, did not hear the stranger creeping up from behind. The student does not hear the metallic locking sound of a knife opening. However, the student does hear the command that leaves the stranger’s lips. “Empty out your pockets!” the stranger says; these words chill the student horridly. The student turns to see the knife and the face of the stranger, shrouded by a university-emblazoned hoodie. The student’s heart-rate drops, then takes off like a rocket. Sweat beads in the student’s armpits and across the student’s brow. The student takes a step back, looking toward the street that has just cleared of traffic as a greenish-white stick figure appears on the opposite light post. The stranger takes a step closer, pushing the knife towards the student’s turned face. The student’s peripheral vision catches a glimpse of the knife’s blade. The student begins to run, faster than the student had ever ran in the past. From across the street, the greenish-white stick figure has been joined by the crowd of students, all urging the student on. “Run! You can make it!” they cry. The student can almost feel the hot breath of the stranger bearing down upon the student’s neck. Images of police-tape and body-bags encourage the student’s rubbery legs to push on. Just as the stranger is about to grab the student’s jacket, the student strides onto the sidewalk. Above the student is a large sign, welcoming everyone to their institute of higher learning. The student stares breathlessly at the assailant, whom is standing two feet from the sidewalk in the bike lane. The stranger then begins to stomp their feet violently, closing his knife as he does, and storms back across the street, disappearing behind an overgrown bush. The group of students then converge on the chemistry major, offering their congratulations. The student then bids them a farewell and continues on into the campus, grateful to be free from the malicious forces of the outside world.
Sound flawed? That’s because it is. Universities across the country have fallen under a spell of blinded assuredness, one that assumes that universities are above crime, corruption, and violence. A&M did not escape the blight, insisting that a few lighted emergency phones and an ill-trained police force is more than enough to protect every student the university enrolls. However, thanks to the federal clery act, we can see that life on campus is just as dangerous as life away from campus. A&M, as well as other universities, would benefit greatly if their administrators would simply acknowledge the fact that their campuses are not the bastions of peace we, as students, are told to believe. In that same thought process, A&M should rethink their “No Guns On Campus” policy (as defined in Penal Code Section 46.05(a)). ("TITLE 10") A “No Guns” rule works just as well as a “No Rape”, “No Stealing”, “No Cheating“, or “No Fighting” rule. A person who is willing to break the law one way (stealing, sexual assault/aggravated assault and battery, etc) is not discouraged from bringing a weapon to a “weapons free” zone. And since this is the case, criminals will always be better fit to survive an encounter with a law-abiding citizen/student when that citizen/student has been meticulously de-clawed by ridiculous feel-good legislation. We, as students, cannot rely on the police at all times, and therefore must demand the ability to take responsibility for our own safety.
There are many arguments against letting qualified, licensed individuals carry their tools on campus. One very simply states that “More guns isn’t the solution!” (Kingsbury ) Well, then we had better starts by disarming all police and special response teams. “The police are the only people qualified enough to carry such a dangerous weapon!“ (Peterson ) Show me an officer on campus that can consistently place accurate shots on your standard torso target at 25 yards and I’ll show you an avian swine. “Campuses are full of drugs and alcohol abuse, no place for immature students to carry firearms.“ (Gill-Austern) As opposed to the outside world, where drug abuse and alcoholism cease to exist. “If we let these people have their guns on campus, we’ll simply revert to the Wild West, with shootouts on every corner over simple arguments.” (Clark) Just like those nasty corner-shootouts that happen across the state of Texas, which is a Shall Issue concealed handgun licensing state. All of these arguments have been presented against allowing citizens to carry on campuses. However, it hasn’t stopped violence from occurring, nor has it stopped criminals from carrying weapons onto campus.
“More guns isn’t the solution!“ A mantra that has been heard from those against carrying on campus. It’s voiced by certain police officers, parents, students, and faculty. These people feel that if we “flooded” the campuses with guns, more shootings would occur. This argument is flawed since it does not take into account the amount of training and places every single person who carries a concealed tool daily into a single category. These people view everyone with a concealed handgun permit as a liability to society, an ill-trained and trigger-happy danger to those around them. However, such ridiculous stereotyping does not stand true. First, to obtain a concealed carry permit in Texas, you must sign up to take a 12 hour class, which costs $150, not including pistol or ammunition. This class covered all legal aspects of carrying a concealed weapon. This class included written tests, live-fire exercises, role-playing portions, and non-violent conflict resolution strategies. Safety is the biggest concern taught in this class.(KR Training) Also, those who sign up for such a class usually already have experience with a firearm. Perhaps it is with hunting, competition shooting, casual target shooting, or in some cases all three. Those who pass the tests and obtain their concealed carry permit (CHL) are anything but ill-trained. Those who preach that “more guns is not a solution” have probably never researched what is involved with obtaining a CHL, or even had the opportunity to work with a firearm. What good is it to have people stammering against the natural right of self defense when they themselves have no real experience with what they are fighting so vehemently against?
“The police are the only people qualified enough to own such a dangerous weapon!“ This remark is mostly voiced by those who place their and their family’s safety in the hands of a 911 operator. It is rare that a police officer would have to unholster his duty pistol and fire upon a threat. Because of this, police officer training has switched to apprehension techniques. In some departments, officers are not graded on whether or not they can accurately fire upon a target.(Robinson) The reasoning behind this lack of firearms proficiency with your average police officer is due to the reliance on quick-response teams, such as S.W.A.T. These teams are brought in when a threat arises that is assessed to be beyond your average police officer’s ability to handle. However, our reliance on the police, or anyone else other than ourselves for that matter, has caused complacency in our society. We must all remember that the police, no matter how well trained or speedy they are, do not prevent crime. They never have, and unless Spielberg is a seer, never will. Police may sometimes deter crime with their presence, but the police exist to pick up the pieces after the law has been broken. In fact, the supreme court has ruled numerous times that the police are not required to protect the citizens of this country.(Kasler)
Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing (except in very special cases, explained below). Despite a long history of such failed attempts, however, many, people persist in believing the police are obligated to protect them, attempt to recover when no protection was forthcoming, and are emotionally demoralized when the recovery fails. Legal annals abound with such cases. (Kasler)
“When seconds count, the police are only minutes away”, a saying that has made its rounds during this debate. Recently, there was a shooting at Virginia Beach. Three people died, while three others were injured. The attack was reported to the police at 5:00 P.M. that day. It wasn’t until two hours later that the police had found out where the murderer was, and that was when the police surrounded the apartment complex. (Virginia) This is not anecdotal. A simple search for newspaper reports of police action during shootings, stabbings, or blunt-object-beatings will show that the police arrive long after the crime has been committed. The police are no one’s personal security guard. No university could ever have enough of a police presence and still maintain their university to prevent crime from being committed on their grounds. Those who proclaim the police proficient enough for this issue unwittingly wish for a state of martial law at our universities, which are supposedly bastions of open-mindedness and acceptance of diversity.
“Campuses are full of drugs and alcohol abuse, no place for immature students to have firearms.“ This attack is as insulting as it is presumptuous. Starting with the obvious, if universities have such a strict policy on drug and alcohol abuse, how is it that there is still such abuse within their walls? Perhaps it is because those rules do not stop drugs from being used on campus, nor does it stop underage drinking from occurring on campus. In this same breath, we can also agree that just because there is a “no guns on campus” rule does not mean it will be followed. In a way, this damages the argument against weapons on campus. Also, it against makes the assumption that all students are the same. It states that we are all immature, pot-smoking, binge-drinking, ruffians only in college to have a good time. How could we possibly be trusted with our own safety? The arrogance of this argument defies logic, however those in favor of campus carry understand that those in possession of a CHL are not your average wild, out of control college stereotypes. They are a varied group of individuals whom value their lives enough do shoulder the responsibility of their own self defense.
“If we let these people have their guns on campus, we’ll simply revert to the Wild West, with shootouts on every corner over simple arguments.” This was a common argument against the CHL program getting started in Texas, along with may other states. After the CHL bill was passed, those fighting the bill waited for the streets to run red with the blood of innocent citizens, callously shot down by enraged individuals motivated by their inanimate objects. However, this was not the case. The opposite was true. Violent crime lowered, and continued to as more people obtained their CHL. In fact, statistics show that CHL holders are less likely to break the law than non CHL holders of the same age. The numbers actually show us that males in Texas, as of 2001, were 7.7 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes, such as murder, rape, robbery, and assault than a CHL holder. For females, the numbers showed that those without a CHL were 7.5 times more likely to commit these illegal acts. (William) Opponents to students carrying on campus ignore these facts and continue to insist that CHL holders, who carry their concealed tools to the grocery store, to the mall, to the movie theatre, and at home would suddenly and wildly lash out at fellow students if allowed to carry on campus. People tend to anthropomorphize firearms, citing what they view on TV or equating them with what certain criminal people have used them for. Because of this, it is believed that owning a firearm changes the owner’s perception and causes reckless and dangerous activities. As the statistics show, this is not the case.
A sign depicting a crude silhouette of a gun within a red circle cut diagonal across the silhouette will not stop someone from taking a firearm onto school grounds and using it against the students. A clear example was forwarded to every student at Texas A&M October 12, 2007. The Federal Clery Act emails sent to our neo.tamu accounts inform the students of illegal activities that the police have thought best to show the students. That email details the October 6th account of a young girl who was held up by two men, one with a pistol. The student was walking through parking lot 40, on the south side of campus, when she was approached from behind by the two men. After taking her purse, they made off quickly. (TAMU) These men were there to violate the law. They did not care about the rights of that student who lost her purse, nor did they care if there was a police presence on campus. So why then should they care for the “no weapons on campus” rule? One of these men had a firearm, which he used to intimidate the helpless student into getting what he wanted. Every single one of the Federal Clery Act emails should be a wake-up call to those who think they could never be victims.
CHL holders are rational, law abiding citizens who shoulder the responsibility of their own safety every day. They are the people behind you in line at Wal-mart, those you meet at the gas-station pumping gas, and those enjoying the movie two rows in front of you. CHL holders carry their tools everywhere, except when barred from doing so. Rules like “No guns on campus” strip law-abiding citizens of their right to proper self-defense. These rules only apply to those that comply with the law. So if the police cannot stop these things from happening, and the rules established to try and protect the students only leave them defenseless, what can campuses do? To combat the shadows cast by the tombstones of victims from various school shootings across the country, A&M decided it was best to place more lighted emergency phone-stations around campus. It was a simple feel-good move aimed at quelling the restlessness of its students. Simple feel-good legislation will not stop crime. The responsibility of safety lies strictly in the hands of the individual. Stripping students and faculty CHL rights on campus robs them of a chance to defend themselves properly. The police cannot protect us. Signs and laws cannot protect us. Disarmed and helpless, we will continue to be preyed upon by the dredges of society: The rapists, the burglars, the petty thieves, and the murderous sociopaths. It is time that campus officials take notice to the rights of the students and the faculty. It is time that they allow us the proper means of defense instead of forcing us to assume the role of the victim. It is time you to choose: Victim or Survivor?
Sources
"TITLE 10. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND MORALS." 6 Apr 2008 <http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.010.00.000046.00.htm >.
Kingsbury, Laura. "Indiana law enforcement officials discuss firearms on campus." The Penn 3/4/08 <http://media.www.thepenn.org/media/storage/paper930/news/2008/03/04/News/I ndiana.Law.Enforcement.Officials.Discuss.Firearms.On.Campus- 3248671.shtml>.
Peterson, Hayley . "Bill to allow firearm possession on campus." Red and Black 4/2/08 <http://media.www.redandblack.com/media/storage/paper871/news/2008/04/02/N ews/Bill-To.Allow.Firearm.Possession.On.Campus-3296491.shtml>.
Gill-Austern, Maggie. "Girls, guys and Glocks?." Sun Journal 03 09 2008 <http://www.sunjournal.com/story/255421-3/bsection/Girls_guys_and_Glocks/>.
Clark, Julie. "Concealing weapons would add increased campus safety risk." The Aubourn Plainsman 04 03 2008 <http://www.theplainsman.com/front/2008/apr- 03/campus_gun_bill_shot_down_state_senate>.
KR Training, "Texas Concealed Handgun License Training ." KR Training <http://www.krtraining.com/KRTraining/Classes/chlnew.html>.
Robinson, Jim. "Jackson Police Officers Firearms Testing Below Standard." Expert Witness News 05 11 2007 <http://www.expertwitnessblog.com/2007/05/jackson_police_officers_firearms_t esting_below_standards.html>.
Kasler, Peter. "Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals." 05 11 2007 <http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html>.
Virginia, "3 dead, 3 injured in Va. Beach shooting." In Rich 03 20 2008 <http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-03-20- 0170.html>.
Sturdevant,, William . "An Analysis Of The Arrest Rate Of Texas Concealed Handgun License Holders As Compared To The Arrest Rate Of The Entire Texas Population 1996 - 1998, Revised to include 1999 and 2000 data." 08 24 2001 <http://www.txchia.org/sturdevant2000.htm>.
Texas A&M University, "Theft." Federal Clery Act 10 12 2007
<neo.tamu.edu>.
But I hope those on this forum understand and appreciate it.
Nicholas Kennedy
April 6, 2008
Concealed Carry on Campus: The Responsibility of Self Defense
There was a young chemistry major who attended a major university in Texas, a university that enjoyed yelling immensely. This student, a sophomore, lived in an off-campus apartment complex a quarter-mile from campus. Every Thursday, after eating an early dinner, this student would walk to a 6:00 P.M. chemistry lab. While walking to the lab one night, the student stopped for traffic, hurriedly pressing the WALK button on the traffic-light post. A group of people, also students, waited on the other side of the street, eagerly eyeing the red hand and waiting for their chance to traverse the street. The Chemistry student, while gingerly watching the red hand, did not hear the stranger creeping up from behind. The student does not hear the metallic locking sound of a knife opening. However, the student does hear the command that leaves the stranger’s lips. “Empty out your pockets!” the stranger says; these words chill the student horridly. The student turns to see the knife and the face of the stranger, shrouded by a university-emblazoned hoodie. The student’s heart-rate drops, then takes off like a rocket. Sweat beads in the student’s armpits and across the student’s brow. The student takes a step back, looking toward the street that has just cleared of traffic as a greenish-white stick figure appears on the opposite light post. The stranger takes a step closer, pushing the knife towards the student’s turned face. The student’s peripheral vision catches a glimpse of the knife’s blade. The student begins to run, faster than the student had ever ran in the past. From across the street, the greenish-white stick figure has been joined by the crowd of students, all urging the student on. “Run! You can make it!” they cry. The student can almost feel the hot breath of the stranger bearing down upon the student’s neck. Images of police-tape and body-bags encourage the student’s rubbery legs to push on. Just as the stranger is about to grab the student’s jacket, the student strides onto the sidewalk. Above the student is a large sign, welcoming everyone to their institute of higher learning. The student stares breathlessly at the assailant, whom is standing two feet from the sidewalk in the bike lane. The stranger then begins to stomp their feet violently, closing his knife as he does, and storms back across the street, disappearing behind an overgrown bush. The group of students then converge on the chemistry major, offering their congratulations. The student then bids them a farewell and continues on into the campus, grateful to be free from the malicious forces of the outside world.
Sound flawed? That’s because it is. Universities across the country have fallen under a spell of blinded assuredness, one that assumes that universities are above crime, corruption, and violence. A&M did not escape the blight, insisting that a few lighted emergency phones and an ill-trained police force is more than enough to protect every student the university enrolls. However, thanks to the federal clery act, we can see that life on campus is just as dangerous as life away from campus. A&M, as well as other universities, would benefit greatly if their administrators would simply acknowledge the fact that their campuses are not the bastions of peace we, as students, are told to believe. In that same thought process, A&M should rethink their “No Guns On Campus” policy (as defined in Penal Code Section 46.05(a)). ("TITLE 10") A “No Guns” rule works just as well as a “No Rape”, “No Stealing”, “No Cheating“, or “No Fighting” rule. A person who is willing to break the law one way (stealing, sexual assault/aggravated assault and battery, etc) is not discouraged from bringing a weapon to a “weapons free” zone. And since this is the case, criminals will always be better fit to survive an encounter with a law-abiding citizen/student when that citizen/student has been meticulously de-clawed by ridiculous feel-good legislation. We, as students, cannot rely on the police at all times, and therefore must demand the ability to take responsibility for our own safety.
There are many arguments against letting qualified, licensed individuals carry their tools on campus. One very simply states that “More guns isn’t the solution!” (Kingsbury ) Well, then we had better starts by disarming all police and special response teams. “The police are the only people qualified enough to carry such a dangerous weapon!“ (Peterson ) Show me an officer on campus that can consistently place accurate shots on your standard torso target at 25 yards and I’ll show you an avian swine. “Campuses are full of drugs and alcohol abuse, no place for immature students to carry firearms.“ (Gill-Austern) As opposed to the outside world, where drug abuse and alcoholism cease to exist. “If we let these people have their guns on campus, we’ll simply revert to the Wild West, with shootouts on every corner over simple arguments.” (Clark) Just like those nasty corner-shootouts that happen across the state of Texas, which is a Shall Issue concealed handgun licensing state. All of these arguments have been presented against allowing citizens to carry on campuses. However, it hasn’t stopped violence from occurring, nor has it stopped criminals from carrying weapons onto campus.
“More guns isn’t the solution!“ A mantra that has been heard from those against carrying on campus. It’s voiced by certain police officers, parents, students, and faculty. These people feel that if we “flooded” the campuses with guns, more shootings would occur. This argument is flawed since it does not take into account the amount of training and places every single person who carries a concealed tool daily into a single category. These people view everyone with a concealed handgun permit as a liability to society, an ill-trained and trigger-happy danger to those around them. However, such ridiculous stereotyping does not stand true. First, to obtain a concealed carry permit in Texas, you must sign up to take a 12 hour class, which costs $150, not including pistol or ammunition. This class covered all legal aspects of carrying a concealed weapon. This class included written tests, live-fire exercises, role-playing portions, and non-violent conflict resolution strategies. Safety is the biggest concern taught in this class.(KR Training) Also, those who sign up for such a class usually already have experience with a firearm. Perhaps it is with hunting, competition shooting, casual target shooting, or in some cases all three. Those who pass the tests and obtain their concealed carry permit (CHL) are anything but ill-trained. Those who preach that “more guns is not a solution” have probably never researched what is involved with obtaining a CHL, or even had the opportunity to work with a firearm. What good is it to have people stammering against the natural right of self defense when they themselves have no real experience with what they are fighting so vehemently against?
“The police are the only people qualified enough to own such a dangerous weapon!“ This remark is mostly voiced by those who place their and their family’s safety in the hands of a 911 operator. It is rare that a police officer would have to unholster his duty pistol and fire upon a threat. Because of this, police officer training has switched to apprehension techniques. In some departments, officers are not graded on whether or not they can accurately fire upon a target.(Robinson) The reasoning behind this lack of firearms proficiency with your average police officer is due to the reliance on quick-response teams, such as S.W.A.T. These teams are brought in when a threat arises that is assessed to be beyond your average police officer’s ability to handle. However, our reliance on the police, or anyone else other than ourselves for that matter, has caused complacency in our society. We must all remember that the police, no matter how well trained or speedy they are, do not prevent crime. They never have, and unless Spielberg is a seer, never will. Police may sometimes deter crime with their presence, but the police exist to pick up the pieces after the law has been broken. In fact, the supreme court has ruled numerous times that the police are not required to protect the citizens of this country.(Kasler)
Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing (except in very special cases, explained below). Despite a long history of such failed attempts, however, many, people persist in believing the police are obligated to protect them, attempt to recover when no protection was forthcoming, and are emotionally demoralized when the recovery fails. Legal annals abound with such cases. (Kasler)
“When seconds count, the police are only minutes away”, a saying that has made its rounds during this debate. Recently, there was a shooting at Virginia Beach. Three people died, while three others were injured. The attack was reported to the police at 5:00 P.M. that day. It wasn’t until two hours later that the police had found out where the murderer was, and that was when the police surrounded the apartment complex. (Virginia) This is not anecdotal. A simple search for newspaper reports of police action during shootings, stabbings, or blunt-object-beatings will show that the police arrive long after the crime has been committed. The police are no one’s personal security guard. No university could ever have enough of a police presence and still maintain their university to prevent crime from being committed on their grounds. Those who proclaim the police proficient enough for this issue unwittingly wish for a state of martial law at our universities, which are supposedly bastions of open-mindedness and acceptance of diversity.
“Campuses are full of drugs and alcohol abuse, no place for immature students to have firearms.“ This attack is as insulting as it is presumptuous. Starting with the obvious, if universities have such a strict policy on drug and alcohol abuse, how is it that there is still such abuse within their walls? Perhaps it is because those rules do not stop drugs from being used on campus, nor does it stop underage drinking from occurring on campus. In this same breath, we can also agree that just because there is a “no guns on campus” rule does not mean it will be followed. In a way, this damages the argument against weapons on campus. Also, it against makes the assumption that all students are the same. It states that we are all immature, pot-smoking, binge-drinking, ruffians only in college to have a good time. How could we possibly be trusted with our own safety? The arrogance of this argument defies logic, however those in favor of campus carry understand that those in possession of a CHL are not your average wild, out of control college stereotypes. They are a varied group of individuals whom value their lives enough do shoulder the responsibility of their own self defense.
“If we let these people have their guns on campus, we’ll simply revert to the Wild West, with shootouts on every corner over simple arguments.” This was a common argument against the CHL program getting started in Texas, along with may other states. After the CHL bill was passed, those fighting the bill waited for the streets to run red with the blood of innocent citizens, callously shot down by enraged individuals motivated by their inanimate objects. However, this was not the case. The opposite was true. Violent crime lowered, and continued to as more people obtained their CHL. In fact, statistics show that CHL holders are less likely to break the law than non CHL holders of the same age. The numbers actually show us that males in Texas, as of 2001, were 7.7 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes, such as murder, rape, robbery, and assault than a CHL holder. For females, the numbers showed that those without a CHL were 7.5 times more likely to commit these illegal acts. (William) Opponents to students carrying on campus ignore these facts and continue to insist that CHL holders, who carry their concealed tools to the grocery store, to the mall, to the movie theatre, and at home would suddenly and wildly lash out at fellow students if allowed to carry on campus. People tend to anthropomorphize firearms, citing what they view on TV or equating them with what certain criminal people have used them for. Because of this, it is believed that owning a firearm changes the owner’s perception and causes reckless and dangerous activities. As the statistics show, this is not the case.
A sign depicting a crude silhouette of a gun within a red circle cut diagonal across the silhouette will not stop someone from taking a firearm onto school grounds and using it against the students. A clear example was forwarded to every student at Texas A&M October 12, 2007. The Federal Clery Act emails sent to our neo.tamu accounts inform the students of illegal activities that the police have thought best to show the students. That email details the October 6th account of a young girl who was held up by two men, one with a pistol. The student was walking through parking lot 40, on the south side of campus, when she was approached from behind by the two men. After taking her purse, they made off quickly. (TAMU) These men were there to violate the law. They did not care about the rights of that student who lost her purse, nor did they care if there was a police presence on campus. So why then should they care for the “no weapons on campus” rule? One of these men had a firearm, which he used to intimidate the helpless student into getting what he wanted. Every single one of the Federal Clery Act emails should be a wake-up call to those who think they could never be victims.
CHL holders are rational, law abiding citizens who shoulder the responsibility of their own safety every day. They are the people behind you in line at Wal-mart, those you meet at the gas-station pumping gas, and those enjoying the movie two rows in front of you. CHL holders carry their tools everywhere, except when barred from doing so. Rules like “No guns on campus” strip law-abiding citizens of their right to proper self-defense. These rules only apply to those that comply with the law. So if the police cannot stop these things from happening, and the rules established to try and protect the students only leave them defenseless, what can campuses do? To combat the shadows cast by the tombstones of victims from various school shootings across the country, A&M decided it was best to place more lighted emergency phone-stations around campus. It was a simple feel-good move aimed at quelling the restlessness of its students. Simple feel-good legislation will not stop crime. The responsibility of safety lies strictly in the hands of the individual. Stripping students and faculty CHL rights on campus robs them of a chance to defend themselves properly. The police cannot protect us. Signs and laws cannot protect us. Disarmed and helpless, we will continue to be preyed upon by the dredges of society: The rapists, the burglars, the petty thieves, and the murderous sociopaths. It is time that campus officials take notice to the rights of the students and the faculty. It is time that they allow us the proper means of defense instead of forcing us to assume the role of the victim. It is time you to choose: Victim or Survivor?
Sources
"TITLE 10. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND MORALS." 6 Apr 2008 <http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.010.00.000046.00.htm >.
Kingsbury, Laura. "Indiana law enforcement officials discuss firearms on campus." The Penn 3/4/08 <http://media.www.thepenn.org/media/storage/paper930/news/2008/03/04/News/I ndiana.Law.Enforcement.Officials.Discuss.Firearms.On.Campus- 3248671.shtml>.
Peterson, Hayley . "Bill to allow firearm possession on campus." Red and Black 4/2/08 <http://media.www.redandblack.com/media/storage/paper871/news/2008/04/02/N ews/Bill-To.Allow.Firearm.Possession.On.Campus-3296491.shtml>.
Gill-Austern, Maggie. "Girls, guys and Glocks?." Sun Journal 03 09 2008 <http://www.sunjournal.com/story/255421-3/bsection/Girls_guys_and_Glocks/>.
Clark, Julie. "Concealing weapons would add increased campus safety risk." The Aubourn Plainsman 04 03 2008 <http://www.theplainsman.com/front/2008/apr- 03/campus_gun_bill_shot_down_state_senate>.
KR Training, "Texas Concealed Handgun License Training ." KR Training <http://www.krtraining.com/KRTraining/Classes/chlnew.html>.
Robinson, Jim. "Jackson Police Officers Firearms Testing Below Standard." Expert Witness News 05 11 2007 <http://www.expertwitnessblog.com/2007/05/jackson_police_officers_firearms_t esting_below_standards.html>.
Kasler, Peter. "Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals." 05 11 2007 <http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html>.
Virginia, "3 dead, 3 injured in Va. Beach shooting." In Rich 03 20 2008 <http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-03-20- 0170.html>.
Sturdevant,, William . "An Analysis Of The Arrest Rate Of Texas Concealed Handgun License Holders As Compared To The Arrest Rate Of The Entire Texas Population 1996 - 1998, Revised to include 1999 and 2000 data." 08 24 2001 <http://www.txchia.org/sturdevant2000.htm>.
Texas A&M University, "Theft." Federal Clery Act 10 12 2007
<neo.tamu.edu>.
