Press release [via AmmoLand.com] – The recent murder of a female undergraduate on the campus of the University of Texas at Austin serves as a tragic reminder that college campuses, though typically safe, do play host to every form of violent crime found throughout the rest of society. No matter how much we want to believe that universities are safe spaces shielded from the dangers of the “real world,” the truth is . . .
that the only thing separating most campuses from the rest of the world is a sidewalk. And as we saw at UT-Austin, that sidewalk can be crossed at any time, without warning.
Anti-campus carry activists who harp on the fact that college campuses are statistically very safe (typically on par with affluent neighborhoods in the same city) presuppose that a holder of a license to carry (LTC) a handgun should only carry a gun in places where violent crime is likely.
However, like most reasonable people, LTC holders generally avoid places where violence is likely. They choose to carry handguns in case violence finds them some place where they had no reason to expect it, such as at a movie theater, a restaurant, or even a college campus.
The trained, licensed, carefully screened adults (age 21 and above) who regularly carry concealed handguns in presumably safe locations such as shopping malls, churches, libraries, museums, and even the Texas Capitol are the same ones who’ll soon be authorized to carry concealed handguns on Texas college campuses.
However, UT-Austin President Gregory Fenves and the university’s campus carry policy working group have crafted policies that, in conflict with the intent of the campus carry law passed by the Texas Legislature, will leave LTC holders less able to defend themselves on the University of Texas campus than in most other places throughout the state.
Imagine that you’re a 22-year-old woman walking back to your car after studying late at the UT library. As you reach for your car door, a man lunges from the shadows and grabs your other arm. Your adrenaline surges, and your mind goes to the concealed handgun tucked into your waistband.
As the man twists your arm and tries to force you to the ground, your free hand grabs the gun. You draw it just as his free hand draws a knife from his pocket. You point the gun at your assailant, squeeze the trigger, and…CLICK. Per UT-Austin’s campus carry policy, your gun’s chamber is empty. Even if you had an extra second to chamber a round, you’d need both hands free to do so.
Now imagine that you’re a female university employee walking through that same garage when a man with a knife steps out in front of you. Your first instinct is to reach for the secret handgun pocket built into the side of your purse, but it’s empty.
Because you’re never sure when your job will require you to visit an office that the occupant has declared “gun-free,” you’re seldom able to carry your gun on campus. According to state law, you have the right to carry a concealed handgun on campus, but thanks to university policy, you enjoy that right in name only.
The recent tragedy at UT-Austin should serve as a wakeup call to university administrators who seek to handicap LTC holders on campus.
Antonia Okafor, Southwest regional director for Students for Concealed Carry, commented, “The senselessness of this heinous crime reaffirms that we can’t try to predict when and where violence will strike. For that reason, vetted, licensed adults should enjoy the same measure of personal protection on campus that they already enjoy virtually everywhere else.”
Student for Concealed Carry extends its deepest condolences to the family and friends of the young woman murdered at UT-Austin. In deference to her family’s statement that “the last thing she would want is to be the poster child for any cause,” we have refrained from using her name in this release.
About Students for Concealed Carry:
Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) is a national, non-partisan, grassroots organization comprising college students, faculty, staff, and concerned citizens who believe that holders of state-issued concealed handgun licenses should be allowed the same measure of personal protection on college campuses that current laws afford them virtually everywhere else. SCC is not affiliated with the NRA or any other organization. For more information on the debate over campus carry in Texas, visit WhyCampusCarry.com.
For more information on SCC, visit ConcealedCampus.org or Facebook.com/ConcealedCampus.
Campus carry “if it saves just one life”
“It’s for the children!”
Isn’t that what Hillary would say?
Tasteful, persuasive statement on SCC’s part.
Isn’t this the other side of ‘waiving the bloody shirt’ argument?
Yes, but with logic instead of hysteria.
I think the idea is that waiving the bloody shirt implies an emotional appeal eschewing logic. Here they have even forgone giving the victims name and given specific reasonable scenarios in which UT policy would be detrimental to the saftey of its students. Admittedly it is a fine line between waiving a bloody shirt and using examples.
Showing the bloody shirt and explaining why it is bloody and shouldn’t be is not the same as waiving a bloody shirt, gnashing your teeth, and promoting anti- self-defense arguments based on emotion that will never prevent another bloody shirt.
bingo! this guy wins internet points!
Sound logical statements by students, soon to be ignored by campus administrators, who had to make that pesky statement that one of their student “family” members passed away and they’ll do everything to correct from occurring again, except the one thing that offers any chance of survival.
Sing it loud and proud and the drum beat…another one bight the dust, another one bites the dust.
Just like BLM causing University of Missouri enrollment to decline, perhaps students should vote with their feet.
While if this happened to me, I’d be fine being a poster child for universal carry rights, I think they should have respected her wishes, not just by withholding her name, but by leaving her out of it completely, it should be my right to carry, and hers to remain out of the politics of this.
I tend to agree with the tenor of your statement. However, I don’t think she wished to remain outside of the politics of this , as she publicly opposed campus carry. I would still be loath to use her as an example of the prudence of campus carry just now. And speaking of that–I notice that Haruka Weiser has pretty much disappeared from the “front page” of both the Yahoo and MSN news portals. Since she wasn’t shot, the mainstream “news” media obviously have no interest in continuing to publicize her tragic death. Ditto the Lackland shooting, there is obviously nothing there for the antis to make hay with, so the story is fast submerging out of sight.
Its not about her. She died not having the tool that may have given her a chance. That was her choice. The immoral position of school administration dispite the law, is ALL are denied based on their opinion. When individual liberty to pursue lawful self defense is revoked an organization condones murder.
She publicly opposed campus carry? I hadn’t read that.
Wow. While it often does take someone an entire lifetime before they realize how foolish they’ve been, usually that means several decades of bad decisions and impositions first.
It was on the first thread related to this incident–she had signed one of those “no guns” petitions and added a comment: “There is no reason for anyone to carry a firearm in a learning environment” or something to that effect. As the guy who posted the link said, it was kind of chilling to read it.
We would be foolish to ignore the mistakes of others and fail to learn from them. Learning from other people’s mistakes requires that we, you know, mention their mistakes.
Leaving her name out is good enough.
So, the university violating state law is causing blood in the streets. Say it ain’t so Joe.
Until administrators start to burn for instances like these, they will continue to lie for ideology and convenience.
Their lawyers tell them a gun accident on campus will be cheerfully circulated by the media (to their embarrassment) and their personal bias deplores personal responsibility, strength, preparedness, and independence.
You cannot expect any change in their tune until pressing legal/legislative action would hold them personally and financially responsible for what they have done, or imminent lethal consequences are at hand.
If you’re irritated about this, volunteering in one of these outlets will show you results much faster than complaining.
Good job, Students for Concealed Carry.
But let’s face it: Special snowflakes aren’t going to carry and they are not going to listen. They will retreat in fear to their safe spaces, suck their thumbs and hope that well-armed rough men — the kind of men that they most despise — will save them.
That’s fine…personal choice and all that.
The part that’s wrong is for those same special snowflakes to think, and have in practice, they have the power to make that decision for others (aka, “everyone else”).
I’d be interested in what the anti-campus carry activists comments are on that slaughter.
Something tells me it would sound suspiciously like crickets softly chirping…
Like I said, the story has pretty much gone under the radar nationally. Not much there for the “safe space” crowd to use against gun-toters. Altho given this is UT we are talking about, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if some idiots at some point try to blame her death precisely on “loose gun laws” or some such. Elliot Roger’s first three victims, who were knifed to death, have entered the national lexicon as “victims of a gunman”, when they aren’t being ignored altogether.
Imagine that campus concealed carry were not outlawed. Now imagine that the next specimen of bad guy is sitting in his car, sizing up students leaving their lecture halls late at night, walking to their cars. He has to decide which student might be carrying, and which might not. And if he’s going to mug one of these students he thinks is unarmed, and he chooses wisely, will another armed student come to their aid?
Frustrated, the buzz of his most recent drug-of-choice wearing off, he decides its not worth it. Instead, he drives off in search of a “gun free zone” to ply his trade.
Nah. He just decides to turn his life around and send in his application to that seminary school he’s been considering….
“Frustrated, the buzz of his most recent drug-of-choice wearing off, he decides its not worth it. Instead, he drives off in search of a “gun free zone” to ply his trade.”
Maybe, maybe not.
It’s a dangerous gamble to assume that such people process information against the same values in the same manner. Their risk-reward calculus is very different, and it is sprinkled with healthy doses of entitlement and lack of belief that “it will happen to them.”
‘…on Sunday, April 3, just before 10pm. Weiser was looking at her cell phone and walking…’
Situational awareness, people. All the firepower in the world won’t do you a bit of good if you’re oblivious to your surroundings.
“No matter how much we want to believe that universities are safe spaces shielded from the dangers of the “real world,” the truth is . . .”
Nearly every college I have visited recently borders a bad part of town, and there are no fences around colleges to keep the bad guys out.
I am amazed at the number of people too young to have concealed handgun license, don’t carry a can of mace. Pepper gas in the face might have made the thug rethink his choice of victim. The young woman, who tragically lost her life to an ambush predator, was a recent HS graduate, freshman in college, not legal age of 21 to even have a CHGL, LTC.
I made it from an 18 yrs. old kid to 65 yr. old senior citizen because my dad drilled me on stand up straight, walk like you know where you are going, anyone who grabs you, fight back like a street cat. I’m not blaming the victim, I’m saying, parents raise your kids to not act like a potential victim, when out in public by yourself
I agree, to an extent. The trouble is, until they are 18-ish, they can’t even carry mace or pepper spray when going to and from their most common destination.
Attack an adult over 21, who physically may be able to strike back, and you might just get a pistol in return.
Attack an adult over 18, who physically may be able to strike back, and you might get a face full of chemical.
Attack a child, who physically may _not_ be able to strike back, and you can do what you want since once you cover or muffle their screams.
Aside from the obvious gun control crap, this really bothers me:
“The trained, licensed, carefully screened adults (age 21 and above)”
Because nobody else is at risk of being attacked?
My 18 year old grand daughter is in college. Even if she wanted it, she can’t get a “license” or a gun. “Carefully screened?” Oh yeah, for what? Oh yeah, if someone thinks you are “depressed” or some other non-violent “mental health problem,” you have no choice but to remain among the helpless potential victims. And the line between violent mental illness and plain personality differences becomes ever more murky in the gun control world, with shop keepers being required to determine mental health, even.
Every human being has the same basic RIGHT to self defense, at any age and with whatever tool they think necessary… not a “license” or the approval of those who would “screen” them. Families, sure, but not government at any level.
Every human being who truly can’t be trusted with a gun needs a family keeper or guardian with them. Or to be found dead at the hands of their intended victim.
So, do you provide an armed escort for YOUR under 21, unlicensed and unscreened college student, high school student, or anyone else who doesn’t “qualify” to own a gun by this criteria. I didn’t think so.
Dancer Lives Matter!
More than even campus carry, this highlights the issue of 18 year-olds not being able to protect themselves.
You are old enough drive a car, vote, die for your country (with a gun in your hand), move away from home to attend college, and yet you cannot carry a gun for protection.
It wouldn’t have mattered to this 18 year-old if the campus was completely gun friendly – she was still alone, and she was still unarmed.