Campus carry goes into effect beginning today

[Skipper]

Scott Sidway | News Editor

@Scotty WK

The Texas campus carry law, passed in state legislature last June, goes into full effect beginning today, Monday August 1.

UNT officials have laid out an overview of the school’s campus carry policy, including which buildings and parts of campus are designated as sensitive areas where concealed carry is not allowed. Members of the university’s campus carry task force have urged students, faculty and staff to become familiar with what is allowed and what is prohibited with the new law.

The law only applies to those who are licensed to carry concealed handguns, meaning somebody must be 21 years or older to fit the description of the law. It also does not permit the open carry of guns – only concealed. It also only applies to public, four-year universities in Texas, such as UNT, with private schools receiving the choice to opt out of the law. Most private universities in the state have chosen to do just that.

Campus carry will go into effect for two-year colleges and junior colleges August 1, 2017.

View Full Article

[EagleMBA]

Hold your breath and pray for the best where private universities are concerned. They have joined the list of target-rich, gun-free zones. As for UNT, I predict that there will be no noticeable impact whatsoever.

[Coffee and TV]

I give this topic 3 more replies before it's shut down.

[UNT Five&Dime]

I love that a thread about guns and universities delivers an ad for Kent State:

Edited August 1, 2016 by UNT Five&Dime

[EagleMBA]

3 hours ago, UNT Five&Dime said:

I love that a thread about guns and universities delivers an ad for Kent State:

Now that there is funny!

[EagleMBA]

Question, for those who post here and may have access to UNT demographics:

How many students do we have enrolled that are age 21 or more?

I ask because that would be the total universe of potential new concealed carriers on campus. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that all eligible faculty, staff, etc. already have exercised their right one way or the other. From the time this first came up, I have always wondered just how many people we were talking about.

[FirefightnRick]

I have no idea but my best guess here.

Roughly 1 in 27 Texans hold a CHL.  That's 3% of the state population.

If all 36,000 students were 21 and over that would give us roughly 1,080 CHL carriers on campus.  But they're not all 21 and over.  

So if the age bracket 18-20 accounted for three fourths of the student population 27,000 (and it probably doesn't) that would give us around 270 potential CHL carriers on campus....not including any staff of course. (3% of 9,000 =270).

 

Rick

Edited August 2, 2016 by FirefightnRick

[UNT90]

No effect at all. No problem weenie professors will be threatened over grades. No pulling of guns die to arguments in poli-sci class.

Just normal school days. 

[MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF]

22 hours ago, EagleMBA said:

Hold your breath and pray for the best where private universities are concerned. They have joined the list of target-rich, gun-free zones. As for UNT, I predict that there will be no noticeable impact whatsoever.

I think it's been public colleges and universities that have suffered more on- and near-campus shootings than private ones.

Either way, put me in the "I'm against it" column because there have been students blast professors away...mainly foreign grad students, but students nonetheless.

Also, there's really nothing an armed professor could do anyway.  If a kid comes in, says he or she wants to speak to you, and has a handgun hidden...how is the professor supposed to be ready/react?  Life isn't like the movies where the shooters engage in a minute or two of dramatic dialog, giving the potential victim time to reach for a gun to save him or herself.

So, anyway.  Stupid, unnecessary law.  If I were a betting man, in five years time, I'll be the ledger is titled toward bad incident rather than good/"hero" incidents because of this law.

 

 

[Army of Dad]

36 minutes ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

I think it's been public colleges and universities that have suffered more on- and near-campus shootings than private ones.

Either way, put me in the "I'm against it" column because there have been students blast professors away...mainly foreign grad students, but students nonetheless.

Also, there's really nothing an armed professor could do anyway.  If a kid comes in, says he or she wants to speak to you, and has a handgun hidden...how is the professor supposed to be ready/react?  Life isn't like the movies where the shooters engage in a minute or two of dramatic dialog, giving the potential victim time to reach for a gun to save him or herself.

So, anyway.  Stupid, unnecessary law.  If I were a betting man, in five years time, I'll be the ledger is titled toward bad incident rather than good/"hero" incidents because of this law.

 

 

Very similar rhetoric was bandied about when CHL first passed. That rhetoric was wrong, yours is also more likely to be wrong than right.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Army of Dad

[MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF]

I don't think so.  CHL covers much more geographic territory than a college campus.   And, a vast majority of the CHL holders are not college age. 

This was nothing more a "See What We Can Do Because We Can" law.  Democrats and Republicans both make this kind of law when they dominate a state house.  It wasn't a pressing issue, but they pressed it anyway.

 

 

[UNT90]

49 minutes ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

I think it's been public colleges and universities that have suffered more on- and near-campus shootings than private ones.

Either way, put me in the "I'm against it" column because there have been students blast professors away...mainly foreign grad students, but students nonetheless.

Also, there's really nothing an armed professor could do anyway.  If a kid comes in, says he or she wants to speak to you, and has a handgun hidden...how is the professor supposed to be ready/react?  Life isn't like the movies where the shooters engage in a minute or two of dramatic dialog, giving the potential victim time to reach for a gun to save him or herself.

So, anyway.  Stupid, unnecessary law.  If I were a betting man, in five years time, I'll be the ledger is titled toward bad incident rather than good/"hero" incidents because of this law.

 

 

So those professors were "blown away" before this law came into effect? Didn't the shooters know campus was a gun free zone?

[EagleMBA]

12 hours ago, FirefightnRick said:

I have no idea but my best guess here.

Roughly 1 in 27 Texans hold a CHL.  That's 3% of the state population.

If all 36,000 students were 21 and over that would give us roughly 1,080 CHL carriers on campus.  But they're not all 21 and over.  

So if the age bracket 18-20 accounted for three fourths of the student population 27,000 (and it probably doesn't) that would give us around 270 potential CHL carriers on campus....not including any staff of course. (3% of 9,000 =270).

 

Rick

Thanks, Rick. That defines the size of the "issue" (non-issue) pretty well.

[MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF]

2 hours ago, UNT90 said:

So those professors were "blown away" before this law came into effect? Didn't the shooters know campus was a gun free zone?

What you want me to pretend is that the professors would have:

(1) chosen to be armed, and
(2) been able to reach for their gun before the student shot them
(3) without knowing beforehand that the student were armed and coming to shoot them.

In short, you want me to believe that life is like a movie.  It isn't. I

In your world, the professor, to avoid being murdered by a student, would have to anticipate that every meeting with a student was a potential shooting situations.  And, so, to have his or her gun out waiting for every student.

It's stupid.

There was no widespread issue that passing that legislation was going to solve.  All it does is allow paranoid kids to carry firearms onto campus with them.  Having the law in place at any of the campuses where professor have been shot would have saved any of the professors.  Disgruntled students don't e-mail or call professors and say, "I need to schedule a meeting so that I can shoot you over my unhappiness with grades."

 

[UNT90]

3 minutes ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

What you want me to pretend is that the professors would have:

(1) chosen to be armed, and
(2) been able to reach for their gun before the student shot them
(3) without knowing beforehand that the student were armed and coming to shoot them.

In short, you want me to believe that life is like a movie.  It isn't. I

In your world, the professor, to avoid being murdered by a student, would have to anticipate that every meeting with a student was a potential shooting situations.  And, so, to have his or her gun out waiting for every student.

It's stupid.

There was no widespread issue that passing that legislation was going to solve.  All it does is allow paranoid kids to carry firearms onto campus with them.  Having the law in place at any of the campuses where professor have been shot would have saved any of the professors.  Disgruntled students don't e-mail or call professors and say, "I need to schedule a meeting so that I can shoot you over my unhappiness with grades."

 

Students at Virginia Tech would disagree. 

But it makes as much sense as guns being carried in church, right? 

Gun free zones can be targets of mass murderers. Because they know they will be free to kill. 

But, ya, just because it never happened on UNT campus means it never will. 

[MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF]

BLM March in downtown Dallas wasn't a gun-free zone.

[UNT90]

2 minutes ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

BLM March in downtown Dallas wasn't a gun-free zone.

Nope. It targeted cops. Did you think 4 years ago that an active shooter would target cops? 

Did you? 

[MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF]

Your assumption is that having a bunch of kids on campus carrying guns is going to stop a disgruntled student from shooting a professor.  It's just a fantasy. 

The problem is not the gun, it's the know when the disgruntled student will use it.  You will never know that no matter how many students, faculty, security, or passers by happen to have CHL permits and guns.

The Dallas Police Department was armed the day of BLM march...and, yet, five officers were still murdered.  Simply allowing people to carry firearms doesn't give you a window into the mind of a mentally ill or angry person bent on murder.

 

[UNT90]

41 minutes ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

Your assumption is that having a bunch of kids on campus carrying guns is going to stop a disgruntled student from shooting a professor.  It's just a fantasy. 

The problem is not the gun, it's the know when the disgruntled student will use it.  You will never know that no matter how many students, faculty, security, or passers by happen to have CHL permits and guns.

The Dallas Police Department was armed the day of BLM march...and, yet, five officers were still murdered.  Simply allowing people to carry firearms doesn't give you a window into the mind of a mentally ill or angry person bent on murder.

 

Nope. It allows you to protect yourself from those exact people. 

Like you said, one never knows.