When columnists are self-righteous
Nick Prelosky’s July 2 column “When guns are safe” saddens me as someone who teaches rhetoric. Literally none of the evidence he provides actually supports the conclusion he draws.
First off, he says that during the 1966 Tower shooting, people ran home to get their guns to return fire at the sniper. Concealed handguns would have been of no use in this situation, as only rifles would be effective in aiming at the top of the Tower — and I pray the day will never come when people casually wander college campuses with rifles at the ready.
The scenario as a whole is just inapplicable to arguments for concealed carry.
Prelosky admits that statistics show armed civilians do not perform well in crisis situations and tries to dismiss the potentially fatal error of the civilian who went up the Tower with police after the shooter, Charles Whitman.
The only evidence he has to counter these startling facts is that the police thanked the civilians who helped them on that day. Even assuming this was not just lip service, we should realize that the subsequent development of SWAT teams carrying specialized weapons has changed our society drastically. Police in a similar situation today would almost certainly forcibly eject any citizens with rifles from the area — not matter how well-intentioned — to prevent them from being targets or getting in the way.
Whitman obtained weapons legally when he was in a stable frame of mind and later used them to commit heinous acts. Why do gun rights activists like Prelosky continue to ignore facts like this when they argue that concealed carry permits would not make those heinous acts all the easier to commit?
I have no doubt that the vast majority of concealed carry permit holders would never use their weapons for evil. But I don’t want them acting as vigilantes either. What happens if a madman uses a gun inside a building and the police arrive to see a room full of people holding their own legally obtained handguns?
— Brian Gatten
English PhD student
UT needs vigilante law
In response to Roman McAllen’s July 2 firing line, “Lax law enforcement,” it is not the responsibility of the police to protect individuals, according to the 1981 Supreme Court case Warren v. DC. The fact is, law enforcement can’t be in all places at all times.
Universities in Utah and the Appalachians have taken proactive steps to help individuals with concealed hand gun licenses protect themselves by allowing them to carry on campus. The University of Texas should implement the same rule if it is serious about campus safety.
— Justo Montoya
Spanish junior
Member of Young Americans for Liberty
Improve safety without arming students
In his July 2 editorial, “When guns are safe,” Nick Prelosky wrote that students should “consider the fact that the most notorious incident of gun related violence in our school’s history would have been far worse had it not been for students who were armed.” He writes this to justify allowing students to carry concealed handguns, while the civilians involved in the Tower shooting were armed with rifles — which would not be permitted by last session’s proposed legislation.
Prelosky also neglects several other important facts. First of all, the Tower shooting motivated the nation-wide creation of SWAT teams; prior to that incident, police did not have the types of weapons necessary to return fire at a shooter on top of the UT Tower. That is no longer the case.
Indeed, the UT Tower shooting is an example of why concealed handguns would be useless in a campus shooting. Joe Driver, one of the authors of the guns on campus bill, argued concealed handguns might deter a suicidal student. Even could we use threat of death to deter murder-suicides, a shooter fearing armed response would likely resort to sniping or bombing — attacks against which handguns are impotent.
The author fails to note the irony in his statement that “Austin learned that day that guns make people safer.” The problem was created by a student with a gun — a student who was, at least in theory, responsible. That student also had a psychological impairment, which he had reported to a UT psychiatrist. The shooter even warned the psychiatrist that he felt like going up in the Tower and shooting people.
I propose that instead of arming students, we should be focusing on taking the guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. The editorial’s author seems to agree with this statement.
Indeed, Rick Perry just signed into law HB 3352 — passed unanimously by the Texas legislature — which compels the state to report mental health adjudications to the Brady background check system. Several states have moved to close loopholes which allow guns to be purchased through private sales and at gun shows without background checks; such loopholes permitted the Columbine shooters to obtain their weapons. This same loophole, the so-called gun show loophole, remains open in Texas.
Campuses are extraordinarily safe places. Even factoring in school shootings, these gun-free zones are vastly safer than off-campus areas where guns are permitted. There are many things to be done which can improve student safety further, but arming students is not one of them.
— John Woods
Cell and molecular biology Ph.D. student
Graduate student representative, SG
Brack tract is indispensable
There are very few sites universally recognized as indispensable to an urban environment. One of those sites must include green space, particularly large urban reservoirs of biodiversity that can be studied and appreciated.
Brackenridge Field Lab is the University of Texas' most useful and utilized field station.
The New York firm Cooper-Robertson has proposed plans to develop the Brackenridge tract that entirely ignore UT’s recommendations and needs. I would hope that in the coming months and years Austin's and UT's priorities see to it that the value of Brackenridge Field Lab, with its continued service to science and education, outweighs the short sighted fiscal concerns of today and that plans to re-envision the tract along Lake Austin preserves what I and so many other scientists and educators have considered the single most valuable asset to field biologists in Austin.
— Barrett Klein
Integrative biology graduate student
