http://www.dailytexanonline.com/rally-for-a-gun-free-ut-1.1710938
The author was generous enough to send me his original, unedited draft, which contains his true intentions, rather than the bastardized edit that the Daily Texan usually turns submitted articles into. Usually when I approach someone on the other side I get a hostile reaction (e.g John Woods), but I commend this person for at least opening some sort of dialogue.
Original text shown below, with some key points bolded:
It’s not a protest; it’s a rally. And it’s the most important reason to walk out of class you’ll ever have. This Thursday, April 16th, at 11:30 A.M., students should walk out of class and congregate at the south steps of the capitol for a 12:00 rally. Why? To show the Texas Legislature how big of a mistake they could potentially make and how important the concealed handgun ban is to the people it affects most — us.
For those who are still in the dark about the issue, here is a quick recap: The Texas House Committee of Public Safety recently voted a bill out of committee that would allow any resident with a concealed handgun license to carry a handgun on campus. That means the bill will soon reach the floor for voting; it has 77 co-sponsors, meaning there is a good chance it will pass. The Texas Senate recently passed a similar bill.
The bodies of government at UT speak overwhelmingly against the bill, representing a consensus opinion of the few students that know (1). State employees, such as UTPD, aren’t allowed to comment on proposed legislation, leaving the issue strictly in students’ hands. And the problem with leaving it in students’ hands is that it’s not even on their minds — not enough students know about the bill or understand its implications.(2)
The frightening aspect of the bill is not the individuals with handguns — many licensed carriers are very ethical, responsible people — it’s the fact that some Texas legislators believe the presence of guns on campus will limit or prevent acts of violence. A University is a place of discourse and knowledge, but it is also a place of emotion.(3)
Crimes of passion are a primary concern for law enforcement and University members alike. In the heat of the moment, there is no guarantee that another student wouldn’t steal the gun out of a bag and use it, even on himself. And the fact that there is a gun in the room doesn’t just scare students. A professor in the UT system, speaking on the basis of anonymity because of state employee status, says this bill would directly affect her grading policy; she would be scared to grade fairly knowing a student may have a gun. To a student, receiving a bad grade seems like a death sentence at the time. To a professor, giving one may just be a death sentence. The bill would attempt to limit handguns in sporting events, but not from the areas right outside of sporting events, where much of the fan “interaction” takes place.(4)
Indeed, the case against the bill is quite extensive. But representatives from the student government organizations on campus have presented the legislature with plenty of testimonial and statistical evidence that opposes handguns on campus(5). The legislature has heard all of this. What they need is a visual representation of the students against this bill.
John Woods is a representative and author of a resolution against the bill. Woods, and undergraduate at Virginia Tech during the 2007 shooting, says the most important thing now is not only presenting that information, but also getting people out to the capitol to show legislators how many students, faculty, staff, and parents oppose the idea that more guns means a safer environment. Ideally, getting all co-sponsors to withdraw their name would be the best outcome. But even convincing a few legislators to remove their name will make it much tougher for the bill to pass.
Woods stresses that this is a rally, not a protest. Angry people with hurtful signs do not further the cause. The goal of the rally, which will feature key speakers including Travis County Constable Bruce Elfant, is to encourage the legislature to realize they are not representing their constituency or the desires of the people the bill affects most. Some may cry ‘”Second Amendment,” but the constitution was written to protect people, not guns(7). Discretion and intelligence is necessary in all potential legislation, and right now, we’re not getting it. It’s less a representative democracy and more a reprehensible democracy.
College students are known for their activism. Usually, it only pertains to something that specifically matters to their organization or cause. This legislation matters to every single student, faculty, staff member, and guest speaker that walks on public university grounds, statewide. If ever there was a time to be active, it is now, while it is still relevant and urgent. If you somehow manage to feel neutral about the gun issue, at least recognize that the Texas legislature is not fairly representing those it claims to serve.(8)
After all, it usually isn’t that hard to convince students to miss some class. On Thursday, April 16th, beginning at 11:30 a.m., walk to the south steps of the capitol and miss class for one of the most important issues facing public universities across the state.
Extra notes: 18 states introduced similar legislation, none of them passed it. 93 percent of crimes to college students happen off-campus, assaults made up usually of fist-fights i.e., nobody goes to a college campus to commit a crime in general. Severe penalties for breaking rules or committing crimes on campus, much more severe than usual (expulsion, minimum jail terms etc.). Committee in Virginia determines guns in classrooms would not increase safety. Faculty, staff, students of shootings agree, including most recent in Illinois. UTPD commented as saying students with guns would not make their job easier or safer in any way.
————————–————————–————————–—————
Usually, the anti-CCW articles I’ve seen published on the Daily Toxin are riddled with factual inaccuracies, ad hom attacks, and emotion-based arguments that fail to be justified by statistics. This was probably the “best” of those articles that I have read so far (by “best” I mean more rational). While the author has noted that this article is an informational op-ed about the event and does not necessarily serve to argue on the campus carry issue, there are several concerns from my perspective that I would like to openly address to everyone.
(1) I am not sure if Mr. Burchard was present when Student Government voted against a formal debate and for fast-tracking AR-7, or when the other faculty and student councils voted against campus carry. I sure as hell wasn’t at the other meetings, so that gave John Woods a natural advantage, first of all. The assumption that Student Government and these other groups accurately represent the student body is misleading. I myself witnessed SG voting in favor of banning trays in cafeterias when their constituency was against such a notion, and then they used the excuse that their constituency favors “Gun Free Zones” to justify their votes. Doesn’t seem like a very representative system, especially with the election fiasco to boot.
(2) It is true that not a lot of students know about or understand the bill. However, it is mainly a problem of being unaware of the full extent of current concealed carry statutes in place. Many do not realize that a license is required to conceal-carry, much less how stringent the requirements to obtain one are. Unfortunately, Students for Gun Free Schools likes to manipulate the ignorance of those people. For example, if you read the actual context of AR-7 (which should still be on UTSG’s website), you’ll notice that not ONCE was conceal-carry mentioned in the text, and, instead, John Woods tries to make it sound like we’re trying to legalize ALL guns on campus. The “survey” that Woods cites, which claims that 93% of students do not want campus carry, asked a skewed question that made no mention of campus carry at all. Again, this is playing on ignorance, which is taking the moral low ground.
(3), (4) This is an interesting point. It is commendable of Mr. Burchard to state that most CHL holders are law-abiding citizens. The debate on whether campus carry will lead to an increase in crime has been argued back and forth even before the campus carry movement started. When federal concealed-carry was debated on, the opposition proposed that allowing concealed carry will turn traffic disputes into shootouts. Has gun crime increased significantly after concealed-carry was past? In fact, since 1993, gun crime has been on the decline.
There’s no easy way to soothe the ruffled feathers of the professor scared to grade his/her students’ tests, or the other students in the classroom. People are naturally resistant to change, but you cannot justify maintaining the status quo due to the emotional (and irrational) fears of those who do not understand an issue. I mean, by that logic, colored people should still be segregated from whites, because integration would cause white people to be scared. Actually, I hate the word “change”. Let’s call it “progress”. Wait, I hate that word, too! Dammit! 
(5) I would like to see these statistics. If these statistics are the ones SGFS used in AR-7, then they’ve already been counter-argued time and time again with the official rebuttal we sent out (link can be provided upon request)
(7) I’m curious as to what the 2nd Amendment protects people from, and what the definition of “people” is, according to Mr. Burchard’s interpretation. Protect a government-controlled National Guard from invasion?? Protect private individuals from theft and violence? Protect private individuals from tyranny?
(8) This all boils down to whether one believes freedoms are to be granted and enjoyed by the majority, or that the rights of an oppressed minority deserves protection.
Most of the sources for my info comes from the TXSCCC Handbook: http://www.StudentsForConcealedCarryOnCampus.com
