Republicans in Texas Senate approve guns on campus

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - 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.

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.

Supporters call it a critical self-defense measure and gun rights issue. Opponents worry concealed handguns could lead to more campus violence and suicide.

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 2007 mass shooting at Virginia Tech University, when a gunman killed 32 people 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."

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.

For supporters like the national group Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, Texas was 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 Gov. Rick 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.

Monday's Senate vote may clear the way for a vote in the House as well. A similar House bill already has been approved in committee but had stalled without a vote by the full chamber.

Hearings on the measure were dominated by powerful testimony from supporters who had been raped or assaulted on campus and by opponents who survived the shootings at Virginia Tech.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9N46L881&show_article=1

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

In EVERY jurisdiction where good people are allowed to carry concealed firearms the crime rate has been reduced. In EVERY jurisdiction where the restrictions on concealed carry have been reduced, crime has been reduced. Why would colleges be against reducing crime on campus?

Small steps. but it is good to see that firearms restrictions are going away, the issue is off the table, politically, and it appears that our freedoms will gradually be restored. When everyone can carry concealed with lisences we can all enjoy low crime rates like Vermont.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I remember a professor telling me we could open carry at our University. I wonder if thats still the case.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I remember a professor telling me we could open carry at our University. I wonder if thats still the case.

I wonder if grades automatically improve knowing that all the students you teach are packing firearms.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

In EVERY jurisdiction where good people are allowed to carry concealed firearms the crime rate has been reduced.

Increased consumption of hot chocolate is associated with reduced crime rates. Both are brought about by cold weather, however. Just sayin'...

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Increased consumption of hot chocolate is associated with reduced crime rates. Both are brought about by cold weather, however. Just sayin'...

Sayin' what?

That guns have nothing to do with crime? Is that what you are saying?

I wonder if grades automatically improve knowing that all the students you teach are packing firearms.

No. No evidence of that. I do not think that was the intent of the Texas legislature either.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Sayin' what?

That guns have nothing to do with crime? Is that what you are saying?

Read again what I posted. Maybe you get the message then.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I have a question. (I support the right to own firearms)

Why doesn't the NRA pay to do a comprehensive study on crime and firearm possession? Right now there are a few studies that suggest that firearms may reduce crime. It seems like more money should be put into these studies so we can get some solid evidence that there is a connection (if there is one).

Edited May 11, 2011 by Sousuke

[Danno 1,228]

I have a question. (I support the right to own firearms)

Why doesn't the NRA pay to do a comprehensive study on crime and firearm possession? Right now there are a few studies that suggest that firearms may reduce crime. It seems like more money should be put into these studies so we can get some solid evidence that there is a connection (if there is one).

What good would it do for the NRA to fund a study, if they fund it, it must be biased.

THese finding are hard to accept by some even when neutral parties conduct the research.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Read again what I posted. Maybe you get the message then.

Maybe just say what you think and I will read it.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I have a question. (I support the right to own firearms)

Why doesn't the NRA pay to do a comprehensive study on crime and firearm possession? Right now there are a few studies that suggest that firearms may reduce crime. It seems like more money should be put into these studies so we can get some solid evidence that there is a connection (if there is one).

I have been an NRA life member since 1973. It is not their main function. Since 1977 they have been focused on protecting our rights and have done a great job. In 1977 there were 5 states that allowed concealed carry of firearms. Now 48 states do and 41 allow any qualifying adult to do so. Gun crime has been reduced dramatically and accidents are at all time low. The NRA also funds child fiream safety and general firearm safety training, law enforcement training and competitions.

One of the most influencial studies was done by the University of Chicago and the results published in the book "More Guns, Less Crime" In this exhaustive study of each county that had allowed concealed carry, it was found that in every one of these counties crime was reduced following the implementation of concealed carry laws. In the wake of this, state after state began allowing it. The record holds true.

Concealed carry laws are now so widespread and so well proven to reduce crime that no one can argue against them without sounding completely foolish.

The NRA has concentrated on litigation as well and did fund the challenges to laws which resulted in landmark Supreme Court rulings in 2008 and 2010. I expect the next case to be up to the court next year.

As Danno pointed out, studies funded by the NRA would be dismissed by opponents. On the other hand, legislation and litigation cannot be dismissed. I am proud that MY NRA has done so much more than fund studies

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Maybe just say what you think and I will read it.

I said what I think but you fail to grasp it. Just because two things tend to occur at the same time (increase in hot chocolate consumption and drop in crime rates) doesn't mean that one is the cause of the other. There can always be an unrelated event or events (in this case cold weather) that actually causes both. Got it now?

[SMR 368]

I said what I think but you fail to grasp it. Just because two things tend to occur at the same time (increase in hot chocolate consumption and drop in crime rates) doesn't mean that one is the cause of the other. There can always be an unrelated event or events (in this case cold weather) that actually causes both. Got it now?

So correlation doesn't equal causation. I get it.

But what then is the point of doing studies? Barring a way to accurately simulate alternate realties, the result of any study can be disregarded because correlation doesn't equal causation. In fact science as we know it would be meaningless. Perhaps gravity doesn't exist and some other effect we don't understand and haven't been able to measure is causing the effects attributed to gravity.

At some point you just have to accept that although correlation doesn't equal causation, if the correlation is high enough causation is strongly implied. And to deny causation in such a case of high correlation a reasonable person would need to provide a mechanism that explains the correlation without causation. I'm not personally familiar with the evidence of concealed carry reducing crime so I won't comment on that specifically. But you can't simply disregard any study that you disagree with because correlation doesn't equal causation. Moreover, unless you can suggest a mechanism that would cause the relationship between concealed carry implementation and crime reduction to be correlated but not causal (such as your cold weather mechanism above), the reasonable position to take is that it probably is causal (unless you are implying that the correlation doesn't exist at all, which not having seen the data I won't argue).

So what is the analog of cold weather in this case?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So correlation doesn't equal causation. I get it.

But what then is the point of doing studies? Barring a way to accurately simulate alternate realties, the result of any study can be disregarded because correlation doesn't equal causation. In fact science as we know it would be meaningless. Perhaps gravity doesn't exist and some other effect we don't understand and haven't been able to measure is causing the effects attributed to gravity.

At some point you just have to accept that although correlation doesn't equal causation, if the correlation is high enough causation is strongly implied. And to deny causation in such a case of high correlation a reasonable person would need to provide a mechanism that explains the correlation without causation. I'm not personally familiar with the evidence of concealed carry reducing crime so I won't comment on that specifically. But you can't simply disregard any study that you disagree with because correlation doesn't equal causation. Moreover, unless you can suggest a mechanism that would cause the relationship between concealed carry implementation and crime reduction to be correlated but not causal (such as your cold weather mechanism above), the reasonable position to take is that it probably is causal (unless you are implying that the correlation doesn't exist at all, which not having seen the data I won't argue).

So what is the analog of cold weather in this case?

If there is causation between CC laws and crime rates, then it would follow that you'd see similar results in jurisdictions with similar CC laws. Right? That's the claim that's being presented here - more liberal gun laws cause crime rates to drop. If that was true, then you'd be hard pressed to explain how NYC managed to drive crime rates down while actually tightening gun controls. You'd be hard pressed to explain how two jusrisdictions with the same gun laws experience decreasing crime rates in one and at the same time increasing crime rates in the other. The mere fact that you have diverging results while keeping the variable 'gun control laws' constant and even observe opposite results - i.e. lower crime rates while tightening gun controls - clearly questions the validity of the assumption that more liberal gun laws will drive down crime rates.

[SMR 368]

If there is causation between CC laws and crime rates, then it would follow that you'd see similar results in jurisdictions with similar CC laws. Right? That's the claim that's being presented here - more liberal gun laws cause crime rates to drop. If that was true, then you'd be hard pressed to explain how NYC managed to drive crime rates down while actually tightening gun controls. You'd be hard pressed to explain how two jusrisdictions with the same gun laws experience decreasing crime rates in one and at the same time increasing crime rates in the other. The mere fact that you have diverging results while keeping the variable 'gun control laws' constant and even observe opposite results - i.e. lower crime rates while tightening gun controls - clearly questions the validity of the assumption that more liberal gun laws will drive down crime rates.

Great. Why didn't you say that in the first place?

As I said, I haven't examined the evidence that supposedly correlates concealed carry laws to lower crime. If what you're saying in the above post is true, then it's reasonable to say that concealed carry is not highly correlated to lower crime. There's no need to bring up hot chocolate and such. It's not that correlation doesn't equal causation so much as the fact that the correlation itself is questionable (according to you).

I'm not altogether convinced that concealed carry reduces crime. But I don't think that is the issue that needs to be addressed. The real question is does restriction of firearms reduce crime. Because restricting firearms is reducing the liberty of the people and as such can only be justified in the event that a consistent and meaningful benefit is seen through that restriction. (I'm not saying that restricting liberty is always justified if a benefit can be shown but only that if a benefit can't be shown then restricting liberty is clearly not justified).

And I have never seen any data nor really heard a rational claim to the effect that restricting concealed carry of firearms reduces crime. Or another way to put it, is there any data to show that crime went up when concealed carry was implemented. If not, what is the benefit that supports arguing against concealed carry? I suppose someone may bring up accidental gunshots. I don't know exact numbers but I don't think that accidental gunshots are a huge effect and there are many things which are more dangerous but yet less restricted (swimming pools, for instance).