
Behind the Tower: New Histories of the UT Tower Shootings - benbreen
http://behindthetower.org/
======
slededit
These essays are really well presented and I learned some things I didn't know
before. However anyone who's written a college essay will recognize the
telltale academic verbosity which obscures a lot of the content.

I especially recommend: Armed Civilians and the UT Tower Tragedy [1]

[1] [http://behindthetower.org/armed-civilians-and-the-ut-
tower-t...](http://behindthetower.org/armed-civilians-and-the-ut-tower-
tragedy)

~~~
hga
I'm not at all impressed by the account, especially its puerile agenda, _"
obscures a lot of the content"_ indeed, of trying to paint the armed civilians
and their actions in any bad light the author could dredge up, and one wonders
if he has ever read _anything_ about "modern" combat or the eternal fog of
war. It's not like the concept of supressive fire is at all new, think of the
effect of our arming our troops with semi-auto rifles and carbines in WWII;
Wikipedia has an account who's details I can't vouch for but that goes into
the whole fire and movement doctrine:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_tactics#Squad_tactics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_tactics#Squad_tactics)
and covers German and British versions as well (and before that, the clip fed
bolt action rifle, exemplified by the Mauser 1898, started having profound
effects on infantry tactics, although it's been overshadowed by the
development and deployment of machine guns).

Also, either out of ignorance or more of his demonstrated malice, which in
this context is all but unforgivable, it starts with mentioning the
controversy over the law that's going to force UTAustin to allow students to
carry concealed (which is pretty ahistorical, seeing as how states like
Colorado have had such laws for years without major incidents), but doesn't
mention how back in those days dorms had armories, and some of those armed
civilians providing supressive fire were students who retrieved their rifles
from their dorm's armory.

~~~
arcanus
> it starts with mentioning the controversy over the law that's going to force
> UTAustin to allow students to carry concealed but doesn't mention how back
> in those days dorms had armories, and some of those armed civilians
> providing supressive fire were students who retrieved their rifles from
> their dorm's armory.

It also neglects to mention that under the new law, students would have to be
licensed and therefore over 21 years of age-- e.g. only seniors. All serious
studies indicate it will be an absolutely tiny fraction of the student body:

"A review of student demographics at five large public universities and gun
license statistics show it’s likely less than 2 percent of students who could
carry a gun on campus."
([http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20150314-f...](http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20150314-few-
students-would-be-likely-to-carry-guns-in-texas.ece) )

Furthermore, concealed handgun holders are _less_ likely to commit a felony
than the ambient population, or the police:
[https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRate...](https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2012.pdf)

I agree the account is far too anecdotal to make any meaningful statements.
That having been said, having looked at the statistics, I'm not convinced
states with concealed handgun laws are any more _or_ less safe. I think the
data is too noisy. It certainly is not driving safety, nor is it reducing it
(e.g. a 2nd order effect). As I lean libertarian, that means I tend to favor
CHLs.

