Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. Why should a trained, licensed, carefully screened adult (age 21 or above) be allowed to carry a concealed handgun at a movie theater
on Friday, at a shopping mall on Saturday, and in a church on Sunday but be prohibited from doing so in a college classroom on
Monday?
2. Why should that same license holder be allowed to carry a concealed handgun at a municipal library but not a college library, at a health
club but not a campus recreation center, and at a restaurant but not a university dining hall?
3. Does licensed concealed carry inhibit free expression in Texas churches or prevent heated debates in the Texas Capitoltwo places
where concealed carry is currently allowed?
4. Given that college campuses are open environments with uncontrolled points of entry (no metal detectors or bag checks) and that a
person could just as easily walk into a classroom carrying a backpack full of guns as carrying a backpack full of books, why should a
professor be more concerned about issuing a bad grade to someone who might secretly be a trained, tested, carefully vetted license
holder carrying a gun LEGALLY than to someone who might secretly be an untrained, untested, unvetted criminal carrying a gun
ILLEGALLY?
5. Given that the debate is about changing WHERE concealed handgun license (CHL) holders can carry guns and would not change WHO
can carry a gun, why do opponents keep talking about the relative immaturity of college students?
6. Given that 90% of suicides occur in the victim's home, that most students over the age of 21 live off-campus, that the pending legislation
would allow universities to regulate the storage of firearms in on-campus housing, and that CHL holders are already allowed to keep
handguns in locked vehicles parked on campus, what is the factual basis for claiming that campus carry would lead to an increase in
student suicides?
7. Given that the legalization of campus carry would not change the laws at fraternity houses, off-campus parties, tailgating events, or
barsthe places where students (particularly those old enough to obtain a CHL) are most likely to drinkwhy do opponents spend so
much time talking about the dangers of mixing guns and alcohol?
8. How could three to ten SECONDS of exchanged gunfire (the average length of a gunfight, according to most experts) possibly result in
greater loss of life than a three- to ten-MINUTE uncontested, execution-style massacre?
9. If most shootouts are over in three to ten seconds, what are the odds of police encountering an ongoing shootout and being unable to
distinguish the good guys from the bad guys?
10. Given that CHL holders are taught to move away from danger and would be required to keep their guns concealed unless facing an
IMMEDIATE threat, how significant is the risk of police mistaking a good guy for a bad guy?
11. Given that Texas CHL holders are convicted of violent crimes at approximately 1/5 the rate of the general population and that a Texan is
significantly more likely to be struck by lightning than to be murdered or negligently killed by a Texas CHL holder, why should anyone
assume that these vetted, licensed adults who aren't causing trouble elsewhere in Texas will cause trouble on college campuses?
12. Given that more than 150 U.S. college campuses currently allow licensed concealed carry and have done so for an average of five
years, without a single resulting assault, suicide attempt, or accidental death, why should anyone expect different results in Texas?
13. What is the benefit of a state law or school policy that stacks the odds in favor of any criminal or psychopath willing to ignore state law
and school policy?
Madison D. Welch
Southwest Regional Director
Students for Concealed Carry
madison.welch@concealedcampus.org
www.ConcealedCampus.org
The University of Houston System claims it would need $9 million over that same six-year period to build
and staff secured facilities to store handguns belonging to the estimated handful of UH dorm residents who,
according to Students for Concealed Carry research, are CHL holders. The UH System insists that these
expenses are necessary, even though the bill in question wouldnt mandate safe-storage facilities and would
allow cheaper options such as requiring dorm residents to store firearms at the campus police station or keep
their firearms locked in their cars, as state law currently allows.
It's no coincidence that both M.D. Anderson and the University of Houston are in the district of state Sen.
Rodney Ellis, D-Houston. During the 2011 legislative session, Ellis helped derail similar legislation by
saying on the Senate floor that the bill would cost each of the colleges in his district up to a million dollars
per year in additional insurance premiums. Our group later showed this claim to be dubious, but not before it
succeeded in costing the bill one of the 21 votes it needed, under the Senate's old "two-thirds" rule, to receive
a floor vote. It's no surprise that Ellis has once again played the "unfunded mandate" card.
Aside from safe-storage facilities, most of the requested security upgrades are reported to be things like key
card readers and "judgment" training for staff and security personnel general security measures that are
optional. Locations such as shopping malls, movie theaters and churches manage to allow licensed concealed
carry without such security features. Texas' college campuses have also so far managed to allow licensed
concealed carry in their parking lots, outdoor walkways, grassy quads and other outdoor areas without major
security upgrades or additional police training, so why would allowing concealed carry in campus buildings
suddenly require such expenditures?
A few university officials have tried to generate concern about volatile chemicals stored in campus labs. If
carrying a handgun in close proximity to these chemicals poses such a safety risk, why have the state's
universities so far been content with only the security offered by honor-system-based gun-free policies?
Why are administrators more concerned about the danger from lawfully carried handguns than about the
danger from illegally carried handguns? Arent a bunch of ready-made bombs scattered around a densely
populated campus an invitation to terrorists and psychopaths?
The estimates offered by these universities are not only baseless but also wildly inconsistent small
campuses claim to need millions of dollars while larger campuses, including UT-Austin, have estimated no
additional cost. The bottom line is that the multimillion-dollar price tags claimed by the UT and UH systems
aren't about safety; they're about politics. University officials, aided by like-minded legislators, have honed
the anti-campus-carry argument to appeal to the fiscally conservative majority in the Texas Capitol. It's an
ends-justifies-the-means approach that practitioners hope will kill campus carry legislation or, at the very
least, pad university coffers.
Madison Welch
Regional director of Students for Concealed Carry
@madisondwelch
Madison.Welch@ConcealedCampus.org
www.ConcealedCampus.org
This April 21, 2015 (6:58 AM CDT) Facebook post from Moms Demand Action cites the same
Texas Tribune/University of Texas poll that found more Texans in support of campus carry than opposed to it.
Madison Welch, Southwest regional director for Students for Concealed Carry (SCC), noted, "It's quite telling that
Everytown and Moms Demand Action would simultaneously attack and tout different findings of the same poll,
depending on how those findings reflect on their agenda. Apparently, they think they can have their cake and eat
it too."
This week, SCC launched a website (WhyCampusCarry.com) and a television advertising campaign aimed at unveiling
this type of deception from the gun-control activists working in Texas. Welch concluded, "These carpetbagging
fearmongers aren't giving Texans enough credit. But they'll learn."
###
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 SCC, visit ConcealedCampus.org or Facebook.com/ConcealedCampus.
RELATED: http://tinyurl.com/scc-2015-texas-handout | http://tinyurl.com/texas-chl-requirements |
http://tinyurl.com/chl-tx-prohibited-locations
January 1, 2015, Texas Concealed Handgun Licensure Among Persons Age 18-23
Licenses Issued Minus Licenses Revoked
Age
18*
19*
20*
21
22
23
SUBTOTAL
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
18
78
140
3271
2520
2453
8480
16
61
108
2810
2508
11
39
73
2085
15
42
72
13
40
5503
2208
129
53
TOTAL
16373
396586
396835
400420
403126
397679 (approx.)
397679 (approx.)
2392325
Population estimates courtesy of the Texas Department of State Health Services:
https://www.dshs.state.tx.us/CHS/Popdat/Dtl/DTL2014p/
*A person age 18-20 can only obtain a Texas CHL if he or she is a member or
veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces. As of January 1, 2015, there were a maximum
of 324 active Texas CHLs held by military personnel and veterans age 18-20.
Among Texans in that age range, that's approximately 0.027%, or one person out
of every 3,685.
As of January 1, 2015, the rate of concealed handgun licensure among Texans age
21-23 is approximately 1.3%, or one person out of every 75.
As of January 1, 2015, the rate of concealed handgun licensure among Texans age
18-23 is approximately 0.68%, or one person out of every 146.
(This is up from roughly 0.5%, or one person out of every 198, on January 1, 2013.)
Convictions of Texas CHL Holders for Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon
Total Convictions Aggravated Assault
w/Deadly Weapon
2,292
2,852
2,765
3,079
2,603
2,600
2,513
2,701
2,632
2,901
2,626
2,408
1,767
1,912
1,629
1,468
1,458
1,269
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
25,674,681
25, 145,561
24,782,302
24,326,974
23,904,380
23,507,783
22,859,968
22,490,022
22, 118,509
21,779,893
21,325,018
20,85 1,820
20,044,141
19,759,614
19,439,337
19, 128,261
518,625
461,724
402,9 14
314,574
288,909
258, 162
248,874
239,940
239,863
224,172
218,670
215,836
203,878
183,078
162,597
113,640
AVERAGE:
2.0200%
1.8362%
1.6258%
1.2931%
1.2086%
1.0982%
1.0887%
1.0669%
1.0844%
1.0293%
1.0254%
1.0351%
1.0 171%
0.9265%
0.8364%
0.5941%
1.3157%
% CHL Convictions
10
6
0.4363%
0 .2104%
0. 1085%
0.0974%
0. 1537%
0.0000%
0 .2786%
0.3332%
0.1900%
0. 1724%
0.1142%
0. 1246%
0. 1132%
0.2615%
0.2455%
0.2725%
0.4801%
0 .1576%
0.2083%
o
7
A Texas CHL holder is approximately 1/6 as likely to be convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
26,130,047
25,674,681
25, 145,561
24,782,302
24,326,974
23,904,380
23,507,783
22,859,968
22,490,022
22, 118,509
21,779,893
21,325,018
20,85 1,820
20,044, 141
19,759,614
19,439,337
19, 128,261
584,850
518,625
461,724
402,914
314,574
288,909
258, 162
248,874
239,940
239,863
224,172
218,670
215,836
203,878
183,078
162,597
113,640
AVERAGE:
Negligent Homicide.
Manslaughter
Negligent Homicide.
M anslaughter
4
% CHL Holders
2.6578%
2.2382%
2.0200%
1.8362%
1.6258%
1.2931%
1.2086%
1.0982%
1.0887%
1.0669%
1.0844%
1.0293%
1.0254%
1.035 1%
1.0171%
0.9265%
0.8364%
0 .5941%
1.3157%
585
660
722
740
649
617
586
543
560
52 1
449
389
256
145
124
82
99
74
3
7
o
o
o
o
o
o
AVERAGE:
% CHL Convictions
0.6838%
0.4545%
0.9695%
1.0811%
0.1541%
0 .4862%
1.1945%
0.3683%
0.5357%
0.0000%
0.2227%
0.514 1%
0.0000%
0.6897%
0.0000%
0.0000%
0.0000%
0.0000%
0.4086%
A Texas CHL holder is approximately 1/3 as likely to be convicted of murder, negligen t homicide, or manslaughter.
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
26,130,047
25,674,681
25, 145,561
24,782,302
24,326,974
23,904,380
23,507,783
22,859,968
22,490,022
22, 118,509
21,779,893
21,325,018
20,85 1,820
20,044, 141
19,759,614
19,439,337
19,128,261
584,850
518,625
461,724
402,914
314,574
288,909
258, 162
248,874
239,940
239,863
224, 172
218,670
215,836
203,878
183,078
162,597
113,640
AVERAGE:
% CHL Holders
2.6578%
2.2382%
2.0200%
1.8362%
1.6258%
1.2931%
1.2086%
1.0982%
1.0887%
1.0669%
1.0844%
1.0293%
1.0254%
1.035 1%
1.0171%
0.9265%
0.8364%
0.5941%
1.3157%
Total Convictions-
Sexual Assault
% CHL Convictions
117
157
162
255
202
204
204
173
207
22 1
301
245
178
192
157
191
225
186
1
2
0.8547%
1.2739%
0.0000%
0.7843%
0.0000%
0.0000%
0.0000%
0.0000%
0.0000%
0.9050%
0 .0000%
0 .0000%
0.0000%
0.0000%
0.6369%
0.0000%
0.0000%
0.0000%
0.2475%
A Texas CHL holder is approximately 1/5 as likely to be convicted of aggravated sexual assault.
Populat ion estimates cou rtesy of t he Texas Department of Stat e Health Services:
https:!/www.dshs.state.tx.us/CHS/Popdat/Dtl/DTL2014p/
Convict ion numbers courtesy of t he Texas Depart ment of Publ ic Sa fety:
https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
AVERAGE :