Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Guns on campus: Discovering what gun laws I truly want to fight for

Opinion

Guns on campus: Discovering what gun laws I truly want to fight for
Getty Images

Phillip Pham is a Co-Executive of Students For Campus Carry Choice.

When committing to UT Austin this fall, I first found it hard to believe that students could freely carry firearms at any public college without factoring in the varying crime rates. After extensive research and talks with activists, I felt compelled to do what I can to reform campus carry (permitting concealed carry on public campuses | Texas Government Code, Sec. 411.2031). My goal is not to abolish the law , but give the power from the state government to the colleges individually. To effectuate my goal I’ve created a nonprofit organization called Students for Campus Carry Choice to advocate for optional campus carry so that each college has the ability to decide whether guns should be allowed or not.


Last month, I traveled to Oregon to attend a speaker session of David Hogg. As the founder of a gun control movement called “March for Our Lives” and a survivor of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, he told the story of how he grew up in a family that often used guns and how he continues to practice shooting guns in ranges to this day. Throughout the conference I wondered how his gun use and gun control movement align together.

He explained his thought process about “responsible gun ownership.” On one side, the shooter at his school, Nikolas Cruz, had legally purchased firearms at 18 years of age even after years of public reports of Cruz threatening to shoot up his school, commit suicide, and attack people of color. Yet at the same time, some homeowners have actually used guns to protect themselves from intruders. From this explanation I realized that gun ownership is a privilege; i.e..not everyone should be able to own a gun. Listening to David, I found out what my mission was in fighting for gun safety laws - a middle ground between control and freedom.

I fully realized I may easily be attacked for saying that guns are a privilege because of the second amendment. However, the 2nd amendment only states that a “well regulated militia” could “keep and bear arms.” The shooter of David’s high school fails to have shown to be “well regulated” when, as I said before, he had regularly made school threats and held racist, xenophobic attitudes. Watching debates between NRA members and David’s fellow student survivors, I have seen that many NRA members agree that not everyone should have the right to own guns, especially with the U.S. lacking cohesive gun control measures to stop the many shooters who get guns legally.

By visiting colleges across the major cities of Texas (Dallas, Austin, Houston) as well as in rural areas (ex. Lubbock), I came to understand better the diversity of public colleges in Texas. . Through research, I saw how crime rates and student cultures across these colleges differ. . For instance, Texas Tech has nearly 9 times the number of crime incidents per 1,000 students as UTD. And after randomly surveying college students and faculty through the Reddit pages of these campuses, I noticed how conservative Texas Tech is with firearms and how liberal UTD can be. I question how Texas state legislators can in good faith set a standard for guns on campuses without considering the different crime and academic cultures.

For these reasons, I believe that we need an optional campus carry policy for all public institutions. Instead of lawmakers setting a standard, it should be the faculty and administration who actually live and work on these campuses for years who should be making the informed safety decisions regarding guns on campuses. One college with high crime rates may wish for guns to protect itself against dangerous intruders, while another college with low crime rates may not wish for guns since the threat of accidental discharges and gun suicides may be higher than an actual outside mass shooter. If UT held a public poll for all students, faculty, and admin annually to decide whether or not guns should be allowed, I would feel safer knowing that the decision making process was collaborative and voted upon. As the Students for Campus Carry Choice organization reaches out to lawmakers, government committees, and college students/faculty, I aspire to raise awareness of the issue and garner support for gun law reforms. Seeing how 19 states, with both Democratic and Republican controlled legislatures have allowed optional campus carry shows that bipartisan legislation is possible. It is not about taking all guns away nor favoring one political party. Rather, this is a united fight for responsible gun ownership.


Read More

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

US Capitol and South America. Nicolas Maduro’s capture is not the end of an era. It marks the opening act of a turbulent transition

AI generated

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

The U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro will be remembered as one of the most dramatic American interventions in Latin America in a generation. But the real story isn’t the raid itself. It’s what the raid reveals about the political imagination of the hemisphere—how quickly governments abandon the language of sovereignty when it becomes inconvenient, and how easily Washington slips back into the posture of regional enforcer.

The operation was months in the making, driven by a mix of narcotrafficking allegations, geopolitical anxiety, and the belief that Maduro’s security perimeter had finally cracked. The Justice Department’s $50 million bounty—an extraordinary price tag for a sitting head of state—signaled that the U.S. no longer viewed Maduro as a political problem to be negotiated with, but as a criminal target to be hunted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red elephants and blue donkeys

The ACA subsidy deadline reveals how Republican paralysis and loyalty-driven leadership are hollowing out Congress’s ability to govern.

Carol Yepes

Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis

Picture a bridge with a clearly posted warning: without a routine maintenance fix, it will close. Engineers agree on the repair, but the construction crew in charge refuses to act. The problem is not that the fix is controversial or complex, but that making the repair might be seen as endorsing the bridge itself.

So, traffic keeps moving, the deadline approaches, and those responsible promise to revisit the issue “next year,” even as the risk of failure grows. The danger is that the bridge fails anyway, leaving everyone who depends on it to bear the cost of inaction.

Keep ReadingShow less
White House
A third party candidate has never won the White House, but there are two ways to examine the current political situation, writes Anderson.
DEA/M. BORCHI/Getty Images

250 Years of Presidential Scandals: From Harding’s Oil Bribes to Trump’s Criminal Conviction

During the 250 years of America’s existence, whenever a scandal involving the U.S. President occurred, the public was shocked and dismayed. When presidential scandals erupt, faith and trust in America – by its citizens as well as allies throughout the world – is lost and takes decades to redeem.

Below are several of the more prominent presidential scandals, followed by a suggestion as to how "We the People" can make America truly America again like our founding fathers so eloquently established in the constitution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Money and the American flag
Half of Americans want participatory budgeting at the local level. What's standing in the way?
SimpleImages/Getty Images

For the People, By the People — Or By the Wealthy?

When did America replace “for the people, by the people” with “for the wealthy, by the wealthy”? Wealthy donors are increasingly shaping our policies, institutions, and even the balance of power, while the American people are left as spectators, watching democracy erode before their eyes. The question is not why billionaires need wealth — they already have it. The question is why they insist on owning and controlling government — and the people.

Back in 1968, my Government teacher never spoke of powerful think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, now funded by billionaires determined to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Yet here in 2025, these forces openly work to control the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court through Project 2025. The corruption is visible everywhere. Quid pro quo and pay for play are not abstractions — they are evident in the gifts showered on Supreme Court justices.

Keep ReadingShow less