Shooter on UT Campus

[Cityjazz]

Armed subject reported last seen at Perry Castaneda Library on the University of Texas Campus.

Reports of a shooting first came down at around 8:25 a.m. There have been reports of a person with an automatic weapon with shots fired.

At this time there are no reports of injuries.

[78704]

Shooter reportedly killed himself on the 6th floor of the library.

[Guest022712-3]

Whew! My niece is down there!!

[theaustinescorts]

Apparently popped off some rounds in various places to alarm people but never aimed at anyone, then shot himself. Rumors of second suspect but not confirmed.

[More2Luv]

The entire UT area is shut down, classes have been canceled and APD is searching for the possible 2nd gunmen. So far no one has been reported hurt and their asking people to avoid the area around UT. Traffic on 35 is backed up because of road around the campus are closed. BE CAREFUL!!

[Natalie Reign]

We were just evacuated from Tarlton Law Library, which is pretty far away from PCL as far as campus layout is concerned. I haven't heard any news of anyone being hurt, and the police are doing a pretty quick job of evacuating all of the buildings in our area. We were lucky enough to have some armed officers inside the library prior to lockdown, so things felt pretty safe where I was.

Funnily enough, this is my 2nd campus lockdown. Another one occurred at a prior college when an escaped convict decided to hide in our student center.

As sad as this incident is, I overheard a hilarious comment from a fellow library-goer this morning:

"ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?! Don't people know the LSAT is less than 2 weeks away? Some people are just fucking selfish."

[Booth]

I thought surely by now one of you would have tried to suggest that the campus would be safer if everyone could carry guns. That's what Rep. Joe Driver (R - Garland) thinks and he'll be reintroducing legislation this spring. Seems like things worked out for the best today without anyone other than the gunman getting hurt. It probably would have been a lot worse if students took matters into their own hands. Thoughts?

[78704]

Victim disarmament zones seem like a bad idea to me. Keeps the lawful helpless, doesn't deter criminals from carrying. Maybe require a CHL, sure, but don't deliberately lay out fields where mass murderers may safely play.

I found the suicide more sad than scary, possibly because I carry.

My second current hypothesis regarding the possible second gunman was a perfectly reasonable guy heard nearby gunfire, took cover, and drew. First hypothesis is people saw the bad guy with and without the ski mask, thus two different descriptions.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by 78704

Victim disarmament zones seem like a bad idea to me. Keeps the lawful helpless, doesn't deter criminals from carrying. Maybe require a CHL, sure, but don't deliberately lay out fields where mass murderers may safely play.

A little review -- the UT president wrote an editorial letter a while back in the Statesman stating his disapproval of guns on campus. The faculty at UT are on record as disapproving of guns on campus (can you imagine giving an F to a student who might be packing?). The major student groups disapprove of guns on campus. The reason -- college campuses are MUCH safer than rest of the cities and towns in which they are located. Secondly, most sane people realize that arming 21 year olds puts more people at risk -- a 10 hour class in which you shoot at paper targets does not qualify a person to know what to do in such a situation as yesterday or at Virginia Tech.

I never want to see a law passed by the state that would allow concealed guns on college campuses. However, I have no problem with allowing colleges to decide whether or not concealed weapons are carried.

[mj2749]

I guess it simply depends on whether or not you believe that anyone has the right to harm you or take your life if you've done nothing wrong. My view is this. If I'm in college/university, I'm there to learn, not to have some nutcase come in and take my life. No one has the right to take my life if I'm not harming or threatening anyone (unless I've committed some capital offense for which there is a death penalty).
I believe the most simple and basic human right is the right to live. Personally, I protect that sacred right with a weapon. It doesn't matter where I am or what I'm doing, I'm going to make sure I protect my loved ones and myself. I view that as one of my most basic responsibilities. I will defend my wife and children from harm. How can I do this without a weapon? It's really that simple.
A thought process like this, "Seems like things worked out for the best today without anyone other than the gunman getting hurt" leaves your fate and your loved ones fate to the whims of the perpetrator. If he feels like killing you he will, if he only feels like killing himself, you got lucky. I don't leave my fate or my loved ones fate up to "luck" or the whims of criminals. If you're the parent of a college age student and he wants to carry concealed, encourage him to get more than the required 10 hours training. Send him to a good tactical shooting school. Same goes for your wives or other loved ones. Speed RacerXXX is correct when he says that a 10 hour course hardly prepares anyone for a violent life or death encounter. It's up to individuals to make sure they are prepared. If you want to wait on the Police to handle the situation, good luck. Average SWAT team response time is probably near 20-30 minutes depending on time of day/night etc. The carnage will usually be long over by that time.

[Booth]

What the gun rights advocates are conveniently overlooking is that the UT shooter was not a criminal, at least not until his final hour. There was no reason why he couldn't legally own a gun and yet look what he did. Do you really want guys like that to be armed?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

mj2749,

do you think UT-Austin administration has some sort of vested interest in banning concealed handguns from the campus? No way!! They believe the campus is safer without people with CHLs carrying handguns -- plain and simple. And I agree. I remember (with difficulty) what I was like at the age of 21 and in no way would I want to have been carrying a gun.

I agree with you that to be prepared a person with a CHL should attend advanced classes, but how many really do that? My bet is only a handful. My personal opinion is that many MALES carry concealed weapons for purely macho reasons -- they probably get erections when they strap that gun on. (Comment not aimed at you at all)

I might tend to agree with you that the most basic right is the right to life. But I feel very safe without owning a handgun. Lived 6 decades travelling to most of the major U.S. cities and numerous countries outside the U.S. and have never had the need for a gun to protect myself. Random home break-ins when the owners are there are close to non-existent. Car-jackings are very, very rare. Violent crimes against people are usually limited to very specific areas of cities -- stay out of them after dark and you will lead a very safe life.

I have no problems with you or any other person owning weapons for self protection. Your choice totally. However, you cannot carry your weapon into my place of business, my church, any grade school or high school, or any other establishment with a sign prohibiting weapons. THAT gives me the right to life, protecting me from those few CHL holders that violate the law (6 police officers in the U.S. have been killed by CHL holders, among other violent crimes committed by them).

[mj2749]

SpeedRacer,
I understand your point about the administration not wanting guns on campus. To be honest, I don't think the majority of professors on that campus agree that citizens should have guns at all. Many UT professors are anti-gun period.
I respect that you've stayed safe for so many years without having to carry a gun.
The thing I've learned about crime is that very often it is random and there is no rhyme or reason. I remember a German tourist couple who came from Germany to visit their son at UT. Driving one night they saw the Capitol lit up and decided to drive up E.11th and take a picture from the hill top that's less than 200 meters from IH-35. They set the camera on a tripod and weren't there more than 2 minutes at about 8pm when a crackhead (sorry, a young man with a substance abuse problem, clearly a disability and no fault of his own) assaulted the 70 year old man in front of his wife and stole his camera. It's lucky the man was not seriously hurt. I had a personal involvement in that episode because I happened to be driving by and spoke German.
The point is, bad things can happen to good people. You've been to many cities and stayed safe. Others have been shot while simply sitting at McDonald's trying to enjoy a burger, some even while praying in Church.
I would encourage you to go to the DPS website as far as crimes committed by CHL holders. They track it year by year. The number is so low it's barely recordable. The fact is that people who follow the law to obtain their CHL rarely are the problem. There have been many, many more hundreds of crimes prevented and interrupted by CHL users than there have ever been crimes committed BY CHL holders. TheDepartment of Public Safety website demonstrates this without a doubt.
Think of ANY mass shooting. The Luby's in Killeen, Tx (small town, 23 people killed), Columbine, Virginia Tech, the list goes and and on and one thing always stands out. If just one single person had been armed and prepared, many of those killed could have lived.
SpeedRacer, a person may go their entire life, as you have, an never be the victim of a violent crime. However, should you be unfortunate enough TO become a victim, what options will you have at that time if you chose not to arm yourself?
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/adminis.../convrates.htm

[mj2749]

Originally Posted by Booth

What the gun rights advocates are conveniently overlooking is that the UT shooter was not a criminal, at least not until his final hour. There was no reason why he couldn't legally own a gun and yet look what he did. Do you really want guys like that to be armed?

I think that's an invalid point Booth. The fact is this person did NOT go through the trouble to get a CHL. As most criminals don't. There's something in their mindset that goes against them doing things the legal way. That's why they are criminals. Just because this man had never been arrested doesn't mean he had never committed a crime.
In 2007 there were over 61,260 conviction for crimes in Texas. Out of that number, 160 convictions were of CHL holders. That's .026%. This is according to the Department of Public Safety. I think we can all agree that CHL holders are NOT the problem in the great State of Texas.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

mj2749,

you mention how low the crime rate is by CHL holders and I certainly agree. However, RANDOM crime against people is very low too. Look at the facts. What is the liklihood of your home being broken into when you are there? What is the liklihood of you being a victim of a violent crime? As with crimes by CHL holders, very, very low. I am a white male, older, fairly affluent, live in an area where the violent crime rate is non-existent -- if you study crime demographics the probability of me becoming a victim of a violent crime is almost off the charts.

The one argument I violently disagree with stated by gun advocates is "It can happen to you". Yes it can. But how often has a killer entered a restaurant such as Luby's and opened fire? How often has a killer at a college campus such as Virginia Tech just opened fire, killing random students? The list does NOT go on-and-on. It is a VERY short list. Most random attacks occur so quickly there is not time for the victim to react at all. I agree that a single person with a handgun MIGHT have been able to stop the killings, but that is pure speculation. Since it is doubtful that the person would have been trained in what to do in such circumstances, it is probably more likely they would have ended up a statistic. My opinion, of course.

In the state of Texas, last time I looked only about 2% of the eligible people had CHLs. My guess is that if people at UT-Austin were allowed to carry concealed handguns with a CHL, the MAXIMUM would be 2% IMO. So what would the odds be that if allowed, someone legally carrying a handgun would be in the vicinity of the crime in order to possibly stop it?
Very low. Now balance that liklihood against the possibility of a student with a CHL on campus using his gun against another student. The administrations at the overwhelming majority of U.S. colleges have looked at the possibilities and consider the latter more likely to occur than the former.

Again, all I'm asking is that state legislators stay out of this and let each college decide for itself which path to go down.