TexasCHLforum.com

These professors have their act together! I would really like to have access to some of their research.


For safety, approve bill allowing campus guns
Evidence shows concealed-carry laws lower chance of mass shootings
By EDGAR BROWNING, THEODORE DAY, STAN LIEBOWITZ and CRAIG PIRRONG
Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle
May 1, 2009, 8:52PM

Mass public shootings are a particularly horrific feature of modern life. Many of the bloodiest examples of this scourge have occurred on college campuses, so as professors we are particularly sensitive to this danger.
Despite this — no, because of this — we support a bill currently pending in the Texas Legislature that would permit the concealed carrying of firearms on college and university campuses in the state by holders of concealed-handgun licenses. We therefore call on the Legislature to follow the example of the Missouri House of Representatives, which recently passed a similar bill by an overwhelming margin.
Any public policy involving matters of life and death should be decided after weighing carefully the competing risks. In our opinion, based on a thorough study of the relevant facts and data, permitting Texas CHL holders to carry weapons on the campuses of the state’s colleges and universities would improve safety because: years of experience demonstrate that CHL permit holders are overwhelmingly law-abiding individuals who pose minimal threat to the safety of their fellow citizens; the best available empirical evidence shows that concealed-carry laws result in a dramatic reduction in the incidence of mass public shootings; even in jurisdictions that issue concealed-carry permits, mass public shootings occur almost exclusively in places — like universities — where concealed carry is proscribed; there are numerous examples of gun owners acting to disarm would-be mass murderers, thereby saving lives; and extending the right to carry to educational institutions would help to reduce the rates of other crimes on campuses.
With respect to the risks that CHL holders pose to their fellow citizens, the record is abundantly clear. Based on recent data, Texas CHL holders commit misdemeanors and felonies at a rate of about one-seventh as high as the state’s adult population. The rates at which they commit crimes of violence are even lower relative to the population at large. When CHL permits are revoked, it tends to be for technical violations, such as failure to take their license with them. Ever left your driver’s license at home?
Opponents of permitting concealed carry on campus have raised particular concerns about young people possessing arms in dormitories. These concerns are seriously misplaced not only because one must be 21 to obtain a CHL in Texas, but because the bill currently under consideration explicitly permits universities to prohibit the storage of weapons in dormitories.
Turning to the effect of bans on crime, if gun bans truly reduced the risk of mass public shootings, then gun-free zones would be refuges from such havoc. Sadly, the exact opposite is true. Particularly striking is the simple fact that all multiple victim public shootings in the United States with more than three people killed have occurred where concealed handguns are prohibited. The campus of Virginia Tech University is one particularly tragic example of this. Moreover mass public shootings have occurred in Europe — including a recent incident at a college campus in Greece — despite its draconian gun laws.
Furthermore, a peer-reviewed academic study demonstrates that the passage of concealed-carry law reduces incidents of mass public shooting by 60 percent. Tellingly, those episodes that have occurred in states that allow concealed carry took place in locations like schools and malls where firearms possession was prohibited.
These facts should not be surprising. Gun-free zones are magnets for killers bent on maximizing their body count. They know that they face far less risk of an armed response there than in places where individuals may be armed — and the killer doesn’t know who. Killers may be disturbed, but they aren’t stupid. They go where they have the highest odds of achieving their sick purpose. Gun-free zones are made to order.
Not only does the evidence strongly suggest that permitting concealed carry deters mass public shooting, there are numerous cases in which private firearms owners have disarmed or disabled those attempting to murder indiscriminately in public places. In such circumstances, “first responders” like policemen are anything but; the true first responders are often armed citizens in the line of fire. Since stopping a mass shooting even seconds earlier can save lives, the possibility that a CHL holder could disable or even distract an assailant could be the difference between life and death.
Nor are the benefits of permitting concealed carry on campus limited to its effect on the likelihood of mass carnage. Sixteen peer-reviewed academic studies document that concealed-carry laws reduce rates of violent crime; none finds the opposite. Since gun-free zones in jurisdictions that permit concealed carry tend to attract criminals because of the lower risks they face in such zones, extending the right to carry will also help to reduce the rates of crimes against individuals that occur all too frequently on college campuses.
When concealed carry laws were first considered, there were widespread predictions that the passage of such laws would result in a plague of indiscriminate gunplay on the streets: “Every traffic accident is a gunfight in the making” was a common mantra. Experience in virtually every state demonstrates that these emotional reactions were vastly overblown. Yet similar apocalyptic fears are often raised when the issue of concealed carry on college campuses is discussed. Focusing on the facts rather than the fears, one gets a much different picture: By far the most likely outcome is that concealed carry, though not a panacea for campus violence, will reduce such violence, especially the kinds of horrific mass shootings that haunt students, staff and faculty around the country.
Do you want to reduce the odds of another Virginia Tech? So do we. And that’s why we hope the Legislature passes, and Gov. Rick Perry signs, the bill that would allow holders of concealed handgun licenses to carry on our campuses.
Pirrong is a finance professor at the University of Houston, Day and Liebowitz are economics professors at the University of Texas at Dallas and Browning is an economics professor at Texas A&M University in College Station.

Glad to see some professors can still think.

Focusing on the facts rather than the fears

All I saw at that UT student/teacher protest at the Capitol last week was fear....no facts, no thinking.

Thanks for posting the article.

Great article.

Very nice!

It is disconcerting the aforementioned bill allows for concealed handgun carry on campus, due to the overtones in such language. The implication is that citizens with concealed handgun permits are somehow "qualified" whereas others are not. I don't remember anything suggestive of such a distinction written in the Second Amendment. The right to self defense is that of every living person, regardless. Maybe those "qualified" to carry on campus will get a CHL badge to denote their perceived superior status.

As the four Texas academicians have made abundantly clear, college campuses today can suddenly become very dangerous places. This restrictive bill would deprive people without concealed carry training of a proven, effective methodology to assert their right to self defense, namely the handgun. This is hardly in keeping with the spirit of the Second Amendment. Indeed, it is merely an attempt to maintain the aura of political correctness in Camelot, a feeble attempt at denial.

The good professors cite a study showing concealed carry reduces mass public shootings by sixty per cent. Impressive, yes. But inconclusive and misleading science without corresponding results of the effects of open carry by all, "qualified" or otherwise, on campus.

casingpoint wrote:This restrictive bill would deprive people without concealed carry training of a proven, effective methodology to assert their right to self defense, namely the handgun.

This bill doesn't deprive people without a CHL from carrying a firearm on campus, that act is already prohibited. This bill removes the current obstruction blocking CHL holders from legally carrying on campus, which currently is also prohibited.

Or am I missing something?

Poor choice of words on my part. But I think the writing between the lines is quite clear.

If you are missing anything, it would be the bill's inference that people without CHL's are somehow inferior to those who hold them. The implication is that lesser individuals should not be permitted to defend themselves with guns on campus. What's next , carry your gun concealed without incident for six weeks and you become an honorary volunteer campus cop with powers to hold and question suspects?

casingpoint wrote:Poor choice of words on my part. But I think the writing between the lines is quite clear.

If you are missing anything, it would be the bill's inference that people without CHL's are somehow inferior to those who hold them. The implication is that lesser individuals should not be permitted to defend themselves with guns on campus. What's next , carry your gun concealed without incident for six weeks and you become an honorary volunteer campus cop with powers to hold and question suspects?

Although I wouldn't put that way, CHL holders have proven themselves over nonCHL holders. We have qualified with our weapons, been trained and tested of the relevent law. and have been screened with somewhat stringent qualifications. Because of this we statistically perform fewer crimes than our nonCHL neighbors.

Now the bill under consideration doesn't further restrict anyone.
It does allow those of us who are not LEOs have this privilege. While I would love to see the day that every citizen can legally conceal carry without having to get a license. We should be grateful for progress . if we get succeed in this.

CHL holders have proven themselves over nonCHL holders

That may be the case, but the redactors of the Bill of Rights did not make any distinctions between any purported levels of qualification to keep and bear arms. Every man was enabled by his simple being. Works for me. And it will work on campus. The campus carry bill is attempting to drive a round peg into a square hole under the existing prohibition of open carry when combined with the requirement for a concealed handgun license. This will give birth to a legal absurdity should the bill pass. The Legislatures want to gun up, but only with the better gunnies. The less "unqualified" gunnies, despite their right to self defense, can take their chances with the sheep.

Although I'm all in favor of following the letter of "shall not be infringed", I do find your argument on this point odd, casingpoint.

Currently no one without a CHL is allowed to carry in public off campus either. Not sure why the lack of people trying to get unlicensed or open carry on campus surprises you.

It helps the case of getting CHLers allowed to carry on campus to point out that they are less likely to commit crimes. Which they are, according to TXDPS: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... vrates.htm

Not trying to be mean, maybe I'm just missing something.

casingpoint wrote:

CHL holders have proven themselves over nonCHL holders

That may be the case, but the redactors of the Bill of Rights did not make any distinctions between any purported levels of qualification to keep and bear arms. Every man was enabled by his simple being. Works for me. And it will work on campus. The campus carry bill is attempting to drive a round peg into a square hole under the existing prohibition of open carry when combined with the requirement for a concealed handgun license. This will give birth to a legal absurdity should the bill pass. The Legislatures want to gun up, but only with the better gunnies. The less "unqualified" gunnies, despite their right to self defense, can take their chances with the sheep.

Lets face it the open carry issue is dead. The open carry folks have only themselves to blame.

The fact that open carry folks would speak out to keep folks disarmed at our schools speaks volumes about the antagonism between the 2 sides.
I once was a supporter of open carry. Not any more. Their my way or the highway attitude convinced me that the TSRA is on the right track.

Liberty wrote:The fact that open carry folks would speak out to keep folks disarmed at our schools speaks volumes about the antagonism between the 2 sides.
I once was a supporter of open carry. Not any more. Their my way or the highway attitude convinced me that the TSRA is on the right track.

So it's not just me then, but that's how I read casingpoint's posts as well ... that he'd have no one except LEO's permitted to carry on campus rather than the progression starting with allowing state licensed CHL holders to carry and working the issue from there.

Lets face it the open carry issue is dead

Not really.

The current prohibition on open carry in Texas and the necessity of a special license for concealed carry amounts to a complete ban of handguns for the class of persons without CHL's. SCOTUS ruled in Heller a complete ban is unconstitutional.

The CHL licensing procedure does not reveal anything more in the interest of public safety than can be done with the existing mandatory background check of gun purchasers. As such, the CHL licensing procedure is duplicitous, thereby onerous and outside the scope of scrutiny that can be applied to a fundamental right such as the Second Amendment.

One of these days, Texas is going to have to allow for unregulated open or concealed carry, or both.

casingpoint,

You either haven't read the Heller decision, or read it and didn't understand it. It addressed the constitutionality of banning the OWNERSHIP/POSSESSION of a large class of firearms in the home. It didn't address the issue of carrying outside the home at all. Perhaps in time other cases will continue to whittle away at the myriad of hoops, restrictions and limitations currently in place, not just in Texas, but across the country. These restrictions and limitations weren't put in place in one fell swoop; they won't be removed that way either.

jamullinstx -

Well said.