My response to UT President's commentary in Statesman

[A-R]

Below is a link to and text of a commentary from the University of Texas president published in today's Austin American Statesman, followed by a letter to the editor I just submitted. Will of course let y'all know if they publish my letter.

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/conten ... _edit.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Commentary

Powers: Concealed guns wouldn't promote free expression
Bill Powers Jr., University of Texas president
Friday, May 22, 2009

Our campus endured one of the earliest episodes of large-scale campus violence during the University of Texas tower shootings of 1966. In the years since then, and especially in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech tragedy, we have taken many measures to protect the safety of our students, faculty and staff. Today, our campus is a safe environment with crime rates far below the community at large.

UT is the largest campus in Texas and one of the nation's largest. It has about 50,000 students pursuing their education in a relatively compact, high-density environment. Many are living away from home for the first time, and they are often under stress.

Youth, inexperience, alcohol and many other factors contribute to students making poor choices as they adjust to college life. Adding concealed handguns to that equation has the potential to transform a minor disagreement at a party into a deadly outcome. A depressed student unhappy with grades could irrevocably harm himself, his professor or his classmates.

Universities should be a safe environment for free speech and civil discourse. Students are expected to express their opinions and make decisions about social interactions free of intimidation. So are faculty, counselors and other staff members. The presence of concealed handguns would not promote free expression.

Although suicide is the second-highest cause of death among college students, the college-student suicide rate is half that of non-students in the same age group. A lack of access to firearms on campuses is believed to be a key factor for this difference.

The UT Austin Student Government, Faculty Council and Graduate Student Assembly have all passed resolutions that oppose handguns on campus.

I agree.

****
my response ...

RE: Concealed guns on college campuses

With respect to Mr. Powers, the opinions expressed in his commentary of Friday May 22 are specious at best and purposely misleading at worst.

His description of young students “living away from home for the first time” does not take into account this salient fact: No one under the age of 21 may legally possess a concealed handgun in Texas, per GC 411.172 (a) (2), thus negating his fears based on “youth” and “inexperience”.

Also anyone legally possessing a concealed handgun commits a crime if doing so while intoxicated, GC 46.035 (d), negating his fears based on “alcohol”.

As far as concealed handguns somehow infringing upon “free expression”, the very nature of the word “concealed” negates this argument, as does PC 42.01 (a) (8), which makes it a crime to display a firearm in a manner meant to cause alarm.

And when you bring up the haunting memories of 1966, please remember that, according to Ramiro Martinez, one of the brave law enforcement officers who helped end the siege, armed private citizens should be credited with helping keep the mass murderer at bay while law enforcement moved into position to take him down.

Sir, there are many good citizens of this great state who legally carry concealed handguns every day without incident. These law-abiding citizens commit far fewer crimes per capita than the general population. They are only interested in possessing the legal means to defend themselves from crime.

The students, faculty, and staff of your university – as well as members of the general public who wish to visit your campus – deserve the same right.

[barres]

Well said.

[TrueFlog]

Well said.

Agreed. I have to disagree with your closing line, though. It's not his campus - it's ours. We the People fund it with our tax dollars, and if we wish to permit concealed carry there, we reserve the right to make that decision.

[A-R]

Well said.

Agreed. I have to disagree with your closing line, though. It's not his campus - it's ours. We the People fund it with our tax dollars, and if we wish to permit concealed carry there, we reserve the right to make that decision.

Good points, but I meant "your" in the generic sense (like the Dallas Cowboys are "your team") and also meant to show him that he is leading "his" university poorly with his comments.

[frazzled]

You can post it immediately in the comments section.

[bdickens]

Education does not necessarily equal intelligence.

[Oldgringo]

Education does not necessarily equal intelligence.

It don't?

[A-R]

OK, so I received an email from the Statesman. Seems they might run my letter, if I trim it down to their upper limit of 150 words for letters. Will let y'all know if they run it. My revised version is below (along with email correspondence).

******
Thank you for the opportunity to trim the letter. I have also revised it to reflect a combined rebutal to Mr. Powers' commentary and the Statesman's editorial board opinion. The count now is officially 161 words, but the word counter seems to count the sited legal statues as multiple words because of how they are enumerated. I guess if 150 is a hard and fast rule, you could remove the notations to the legal statutes, but honestly I think they make my points that much stronger and irrefutable - which is what I was going for. Alternatively, you could remove the last sentence, leaving exactly 150 words. I leave this decision to your good judgment as editors.

Anway, thanks again. I appreciate the opportunity. By the way, do you take longer length "commentary" pieces from averages Joes? Or does one have to be the UT president or some other public figure? If so, what is the process and word count for such submissions?

Here is my revised submission:

Some facts to rebut the misleading fears expressed recently by UT President William Powers and the Statesman editorial board regarding licensed carrying of concealed handguns on college campuses:
* No one under the age of 21 may legally possess a concealed handgun in Texas , per GC 411.172 (a) (2). Armed “youth” will still be illegal. And dormitories would be “gun free” if limited to students under 21.
* It is a crime to be intoxicated while legally possessing a concealed handgun, per GC 46.035 (d). Drunken students with guns will still be illegal.
* Displaying a firearm in a manner meant to cause alarm is a crime, per PC 42.01 (a) (8). Thus using a gun to somehow suppress “free expression” will still be illegal.
Properly licensed Texans carry concealed handguns to protect themselves from crime, and in turn they commit far fewer crimes per capita than the general population. There is no compelling reason to limit their rights on college campuses.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: letters <letters@statesman.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 4:58:41 PM
Subject: Re: Rebuttal to William Powers on concealed carry on campus (2009052213484011789)


Thank you for your letter to the editor. We are considering it for publication, but it exceeds our 150 word limit. (Our guidelines are printed daily on the editorial page and are also listed on the Web site.) When we want to print a letter that is too long for publication, we like to give the author the first shot at editing it down. If you wish to rewrite it to conform to our guidelines, we'll be glad to consider it for publication.

Letters to the Editor
305 S. Congress Ave.
P.O. Box 670
Austin, TX 78767
letters@statesman.com

[dicion]

So they allow an unrestricted amount of words of misleading statements and flat out non-factual lies to be published, but in responding, you have to fight it in 150 words or less.

Completely fair.

[mgood]

I like it. The edited version, while less complete, might actually catch and hold the attention of more people. Gets the point across quickly.

[mgood]

So they allow an unrestricted amount of words of misleading statements and flat out non-factual lies to be published, but in responding, you have to fight it in 150 words or less.

Completely fair.

Yeah, and we're danged lucky to get our side published at all.

[74novaman]

So they allow an unrestricted amount of words of misleading statements and flat out non-factual lies to be published, but in responding, you have to fight it in 150 words or less.

Completely fair.

Yeah, and we're danged lucky to get our side published at all.

No bias in media at all, right?

No wonder newspapers are dying like flies...

[A-R]

Well the Statesman ran this long-form piece in today's edition, so I guess that answers my question about whether an "average Joe" can submit a longer piece for publication (below is 550 words from a "certified facility manager"). Of course, the content and slant of that longer piece probably has some bearing on the decision. Below is a well-articulated opinion, but does have that nit-picky problem of misleading "fears" .... how does a gun stored in someone's car cause a "danger" to a workplace? I'd also love to review that 2005 report the guy sites that businesses that "allow" guns lead to more on-the-job fatalities ... does this include police stations and overseas military installations too?

***

Commentary

Carpenter: Allowing guns at the workplace not a good idea
Charles Carpenter, Local Contributor
Wednesday, May 27, 2009

'Don't take your guns to town, son. Leave your guns at home, Bill." Those are a mother's words of wisdom in a Johnny Cash song.

Like Bill, though, the Texas Legislature has other ideas, which means Texans might be free to take guns to work if a bill making its way toward the June 1 finish line becomes law.

Senate Bill 730 would allow employees to bring guns onto their employers' property, as long as they are kept in their cars, even if the business prohibits doing so.

Currently, employers such as DuPont and Southwest Airlines have created policies to allow their employees to bring guns onto their property, but SB 730 will take this decision out of most employers' hands, regardless if they are a call center or a dynamite factory.

While workplace violence is a popular discussion point, statistics show a trend of workplace homicides for all occupations decreasing. Furthermore, most workplace homicides come from high-risk occupations. Even with a one-year uptick of 13 percent in 2007, workplace homicides are below levels last seen in 2003 and still more than 40 percent lower than levels seen in the 1990s.

Allowing employees to carry firearms onto their employers' property invites someone to assume the responsibility of law enforcement. No matter how dire the situation, the last thing the brave men and women of the law enforcement community need is having to determine the perpetrator from the Lone Ranger.

Guns have a place in our society, but the workplace is not one of them.

In 2005, the American Journal of Public Health published a study that showed the risk of being killed at work was substantially higher in workplaces that allowed employees to keep guns on premises, finding workplaces five to seven times more likely to be the site of a homicide relative to those where all weapons were prohibited. This article was not an opinion paper but peer-reviewed, academic research.

Courts have historically found employers liable for the welfare of employees when on company property. By allowing employees to transport and store guns on property, such legislation could burden companies with additional expenses that arise from mitigating risks of these firearms, as well as lawsuits that must be defended despite these bills' intended liability exemption. Few facilities will be able to do enough to avoid a lawsuit.

Before amendments, this bill provides broad latitude over allowing employees to store their firearms in their employers' parking lots. Unfortunately, the authors might not have an adequate grasp of the current workplace, which consists of contractors and temporary employees who, technically, may not be on their employers' property as indicated in these bills. While provisions of the bill could allow employers to modify their parking to keep guns out, companies might find that deed restrictions, lease provisions or terrain could thwart these steps.

Instead of such an all-encompassing bill, the Legislature could be focusing on issues such as domestic violence, the fastest growing workplace violence issue. They could try to extend the right to store guns at work to a certified hunter during deer season or a concealed handgun licensee who obtained a restraining order for his/her safety.

If public safety is a concern, the Legislature could address falls at work, which result in more deaths than workplace homicides and are much more preventable.

Carpenter is a certified facility manager.

[A-R]

The Statesman finally ran my letter today (11 days after I originally submitted it and after the issue was already dead in the legislature). But at least they ran it, and it's getting some nice support in the "comments" section on their web site.

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/conten ... _edit.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Had a nice email chat with one of the guys who selects letters for the paper. When I asked him why they ran 5 anti-gun letters and no pro-gun letters in Sunday's expanded letters section ...

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/conten ... _edit.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

... (knowing I had submitted mine more than a week earlier) he explained that he did not receive my re-written/condensed version in time for the Thursday deadline for Sunday's editorial page. I take him at his word. I used to work in newspaper business, and such deadlines are typical of non breaking news sections of the paper.

Anyway, at least some form of truth in response to Mr. Powers' fear-mongering will be recorded in the paper for posterity.

[Papabear37]

The U.T President is, above all, a politician. He responds to political pressure the way his "handlers" want him to. His public opinions have nothing at all to do with the wants and needs of the students. The policy he states will NOT stop another Charles Whitman tower incident of someone is warped enough and wants to do it bad enough. Maybe not the Tower, but there are a lot of ways for a deranged person to affect another mass killing. It's another sorry case of denying the good and honest people a way to protect themselves from lunatics who have no rules but do have guns!