Three Shot at Lone Star College in North Houston


HOUSTON (KTRK) — Officials have confirmed three people were injured during a shooting at Lone Star College on WW Thorne Drive in north Houston and the situation is said to be under control. We’re told two people are in custody. They are being described only as persons of interest.

We’re told two of the victims suffered multiple gunshot wounds, but were conscious when they arrived at Ben Taub Hospital. Both have been taken into surgery in what’s being called ‘relatively serious condition.’

“There was a lot of blood in the floor and one guy inside. I think he was shot in the leg. He was on the floor, but he wasn’t dead,” a Lone Star College student told us.

Authorities say the shooting was an altercation between two individuals, at least one of whom had student identification. One of the two men pulled out a handgun. A third person, identified as a maintenance man, was accidentally hit. Another woman, uninvolved in the shooting, was taken to an area hospital for a medical condition.


  1. I was driving home from a morning gig as this happened. Lots of chaos and some schools in Aldine ISD went on lockdown.

    Gotta give my props to the Lone Star College system. Many of the campuses are supported by a local property tax as the state government doesn’t give a crap anymore. Lone Star, Houston Community College and the San Jacinto College campuses struggle on.

  2. So really, this is an altercation between two people who happened to be at a community college when they got into a fight? Why don’t you cover the 40,000 or so people who needlessly die each year in auto accidents? Many of those deaths could have been prevented by safer vehicles, wearing seatbelts or outlawing cars all together.

    1. Cars have a significant utilitarian purpose aka driving people and goods around. That makes the usage of cars a cost/benefit situation, with the benefits far outweighing the costs.
      Guns exist for a single purpose, inflicting harm. Making the comparison of guns vs cars and claiming that cars are worse is willfully ignorant.

    2. I disagree with DreamDevil, actually – not in his/her personal conclusion, but based on the validity of the argument (it is question-begging – a textbook-perfect example of the fallacy, in fact).

      More pertinently, though, there’s a fundamental difference in the *nature* of the deaths attributable to automobiles and firearms. Most road deaths are accidental, with murders and suicides tailing away at almost insignificant proportions of deaths. Most firearms deaths are suicides, but murders make up a very significant proportion of firearm homicides. This makes the analysis a bit more nuanced; it’s pretty hard to argue that firearms do not enable homicides to a very significant degree, though. (I’m not basing a gun-control argument on that; as that too would be question-begging. But it’s another reason why cars-to-guns is apples-to-oranges.)

      In addition, the numbers of firearm deaths and road deaths in the US are actually very, very similar; and car and gun ownership rates are also pretty close (though gun ownership has the edge). There are still more automobile deaths per auto than there are gun deaths per gun, but it’s closer than you might think (various sources, incl wikipedia and CDC).

  3. The gun insurance idea has a certain utilitarian elegance to it. Sorry to bring the car comparison in again, but the fact is that operating a car poses a small but indisputable threat to society and requiring insurance is a good, simple and very enforceable idea. I don’t like paying that bill any more than the next guy, but I’m sure glad that almost all cars on the road carry insurance–it protects me. There’s also the aspect of one’s rates being hiked by irresponsible use of a car. (admit it, when you see those flashing lights in your rearview mirror, the first thing you think of is “what’ll this do to my insurance rates?”) Doing something stupid with a gun such as carrying it someplace that’s prohibited could incur a ticket with an accompanying rate hike. Pocketbook issues are good behavioral motivators. Requiring insurance also doesn’t trigger (no pun intended) Second Amendment arguments, as the Constitution makes no requirement that gun ownership be free. Guns and ammunition already cost money, this would just be acknowledging the responsibility of gun owners to share the cost to society that gun ownership creates.

    1. And, just as you do with sports cars, the greater the destructive power of the gun (assault rifle), the higher the insurance.

      The money thing is useful: every six months, when I renew the auto policies on the four cars I own (lots of kid drivers), I question whether we should dump one of those cars to save money. I wonder if someone who owns multiple guns would consider getting rid of extra guns just because it costs too much to have them.

      1. I don’t know this because I don’t own guns, but do you have to pay more on homeowners insurance if you own a gun? I know if you own certain dog breeds (or a trampoline) you have to pay more.

Comments are closed.