Campus Carry Bill Critique

On Tuesday July 28, 2015, LoBeau published a blog titled A Deadly Combination to the ongoing blog: Next Generation Feminist arguing against the signing of a campus carry bill by Governor Greg Abbott. I have to disagree with this argument. I attend UT during the long semester and there have been many times that I have received warning/emergency messages from UTPD about violent behavior and threats especially near Guadalupe which so happens to be the street I have to walk to get to my parking garage. The most recent one I received stated "UTPD searching for subject who displayed a knife at 2400 Guadalupe. Male subject in tyedye shirt." How are students supposed to protect themselves from this kind of situation?

There are a number of restrictions put on who may or may not receive a handgun license that exclude people with certain backgrounds from being eligible such as:

Felony convictions (permanent) and Class A or B misdemeanors (5 years, permanent in cases of domestic violence), including charges that resulted in probation or deferred adjudication.

Pending criminal charges (indefinite until resolved)

Chemical or alcohol dependency (defined as 2 convictions for substance-related offenses in a 10-year period; 10-year ban from the date of the first conviction)

Certain types of psychological diagnoses (indefinite until the condition is testified by a medical professional as being in remission)

Protective or restraining orders (indefinite until rescinded)

Defaults on taxes, student loans, child support and/or other governmental fees (indefinite until resolved).

In my opinion, the people that go through the legal process of getting their handgun license, etc. are responsible enough to carry a gun for protection. Most likely, the people that are going to cause harm with a weapon would bring one regardless of the rules, so unless campuses throughout the states are going to check each and every student as they walk on campus, which is very unlikely, having a weapon for protection on campus is necessary.

Unnecessary Government Spending

While driving through Austin, I see a crazy number of signs warning me to drive now text later, or even just saying drive safely. Are taxpayer dollars really spending money on these pointless signs? I’m sure everyone of age to drive knows what could result of texting and driving. Those that chose to take the risk anyway are hardly going to be affected by some trivial sign. I just can’t vision someone picking up their phone to shoot a text while driving and seeing a sign that reads “Drive now, Text later,” and changing their mind all of a sudden. I certainly don’t see a reckless driver changing the way they drive by reading a sign that says “Drive Safely.”

I understand the reason behind the no texting while driving campaign, but I feel road signs are a lousy way to convince people otherwise. There are much better things to do with government spending. Think of the actual things we could accomplish if that money went toward something a bit more meaningful and consequential like educational grants for deserving students, healthcare, improvement of our infrastructure etc.

I do realize that this is one of many minor spending issues in our state that most likely wouldn’t even put a dent in the other larger programs I mentioned. However, if the government put a stop to multiple unnecessary spending projects, the money could be substantial in helping essential programs and projects throughout Texas.

On Tuesday, July 28, 2015, Andrew M. Brooks posted Stage Five - Original Editorial 1 to his blog: Texas is as Texas Does.

I agreed with this article until I came across the argument that there should be no gun restrictions. I don't know about others, but I am thankful that there are restrictions put on who may or may not be eligible to obtain a gun license in Texas.

These restrictions include:

1. felony convictions (permanent) and Class A or B misdemeanors (5 years, permanent in cases of domestic violence), including charges that resulted in probation or deferred adjudication.
    
2. pending criminal charges (indefinite until resolved)
    
3. chemical or alcohol dependency (defined as 2 convictions for substance-related offenses in a 10-year period; 10-year ban from the date of the first conviction)
    
4. certain types of psychological diagnoses (indefinite until the condition is testified by a medical professional as being in remission)
    
5. protective or restraining orders (indefinite until rescinded)
    
6. defaults on taxes, student loans, child support and/or other governmental fees (indefinite until resolved).
    

Every single one of these restrictions improve the safety of our state, except for the 6th restriction that, in my opinion, is not necessary.

Some argue that felons and criminals are going to find a way to get guns regardless of laws. This may be true, but it doesn't mean we should just hand guns over to them. These rules are put in place, not only to protect us, but to grant us a sense of safety and security to Texas citizens. I do believe in the right to bare arms, but I am definitely opposed to unrestricted access.