Search News


Browse Archives

News

Gun Fight

April 17, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Legislation that would allow guns on college campuses is moving forward in Texas and Missouri, but the history of other such fights suggests the issue won't be put to rest with the passage of a bill.

University officials in Utah allowed concealed weapons on campus only after protracted battles in court and the Legislature. As for Colorado, the fight over firearms continues to this day. Well after the passage of a 2003 law that many argue allows for guns on college campuses, most universities have yet to lift bans.

In contrast to the University of Colorado System, which is fighting in court to uphold its gun ban, Colorado State University's main campus in Fort Collins no longer explicitly prohibits anyone with a concealed weapons permit from bringing a gun on campus. While Colorado State technically allows weapons on campus, university officials haven’t publicized that fact, and they’re conspicuously ambivalent about the decision.

“It’s hard to be comfortable about any of it,” said Anne Hudgens, the university’s dean of students. “We’re not in a comfortable position.”

Proponents of guns on campus suggest that armed students, faculty and staff would help deter or thwart campus shootings. On the other side of the debate are many law enforcement experts and gun control advocates, who say that allowing concealed weapons on campus is tantamount to throwing gasoline on the fire of campus violence and student suicide.

Fifteen states allow colleges to decide whether to allow guns on public college campuses, and only Utah explicitly prohibits campus gun bans, according to Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, a grassroots group pushing colleges to permit weapons. By most estimates, there are fewer than a dozen public institutions that allow students, faculty and staff to carry concealed weapons.

Colorado State Policy “Vague”

When Colorado lawmakers passed a concealed weapons law in 2003, they voted to exempt elementary and secondary school grounds and a number of other facilities. Higher education institutions, however, were notably absent from the exemption list. Confronted with that fact, Colorado State officials agreed -- very quietly -- that they had to allow guns on campus for those with permits.

“We did not take the position that we were going to advertise that it was OK to bring a concealed weapon,” Hudgens said.

But others have done the advertising for Colorado State. Members of a growing movement advocating guns on campus routinely cite Colorado State as one of a handful of universities that have, in the advocates’ view, done the right thing. These advocates note that concerns about lifting bans have not been realized at the university, where there haven’t been incidents of shootings or gun thefts since the ban was lifted.

While Colorado State officials acknowledge that legally carried weapons are now permitted on campus, the university made no changes to its student code of conduct to reflect the change. The code still maintains that a firearm, “even if legally possessed,” cannot be used “in a manner that harms, threatens, or causes fear to others.”

Hudgens says the policy leaves an admittedly small window for licensed gun owners to bring firearms to campus, but they can do so only as long as they don’t use them in a way that violates the

"

“College boys love things that go boom, and there is a direct and geometric relationship between the amount of beer they’ve had and the amount they like boom. You give them a six pack and boom gets really attractive; that’s a problem.” -- Chris Kelly, Missouri legislator

"

code. The policy is just vague enough, however, to cause confusion, according to Richard Eykholt, chair of the university’s Faculty Council.

“My concern is that it’s unclear enough,” said Eykholt, an associate professor of physics. “I think it puts the student in the awkward position of having to make a call.”

Agreeing that the policy is overly vague, the Faculty Council passed a resolution in the fall asking that it be revisited. While clarity of language was the council’s stated goal, Eykholt readily concedes there are a number of faculty who’d like the discussions to lead toward refining or simply reversing the university’s not-so-clearly stated weapons policy.

“I think there are faculty that would like to restrict things more,” he said. “I doubt that many people want an outright ban.”

As for Eykholt personally, he says “there may well be people who have a valid need to have a concealed weapon.” Even so, Eykholt expresses doubts that the presence of concealed weapons on campus would be useful in thwarting a mass shooting, as some advocates argue.

“I hate to think of somebody in the classroom shooting and then other people in the classroom starting shooting,” he said. “A classroom is pretty crowded. I’m not quite sure a gun battle is going to make things any better.”

Even so, students and faculty with proper licensure should have an opportunity to defend themselves if they’re attacked, according to Michael Guzman, president of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. Any policy that prohibits concealed weapons on campus gives criminals an opening to exploit, he said.

“They are given a government guarantee that when they go to these places their victims will be unarmed and unable to defend themselves,” said Guzman, a senior at Texas State University.

Court Battle in Colorado

Looming over the debate in Colorado about guns on campus is a continuing lawsuit. The University of Colorado’s gun ban has the backing of an attorney general’s opinion issued in 2003, but a suit filed in late 2008 by students and alumni says the university’s ban violates current state law.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are being represented on a pro bono basis by the Mountain States Legal Foundation, a nonprofit organization whose stated aims include supporting “individual liberty” and “limited and ethical government.” Jim Manley, a lawyer for the foundation, says his clients are merely asking the University of Colorado to follow the law.

“The reason that Colorado State allows concealed carry is because when the Legislature changed the law in 2003, they made it clear that concealed carry permits were valid on university campuses,” Manley said. “CSU is simply following the state law. That’s why we’re suing UC, to force them to recognize the state law.”

University of Colorado officials see the matter differently, contending weapons policy is an issue that rightfully rests with the Constitutionally appointed regents. The regents enacted a policy in 1994, stating that the possession of firearms on campus is “inconsistent with the academic mission of the university, and in fact, seriously undermines it.”

“Those who brought the lawsuit, we believe they are not interpreting the law correctly and that they don’t understand the role of our Board of Regents, which is [outlined] in the Constitution,” said Ken McConnellogue, spokesman for the University of Colorado System.

The system’s position is backed by a 2003 opinion written by Ken Salazar, the state’s former attorney generally who now serves as U.S. secretary of the interior. In his opinion, Salazar argued that the 2003 legislation did not override the regents’ authority to set university policies. To do so, the Legislature would have needed to have “expressly” limited the regents’ powers with regard to weapons policy, and the law doesn’t do that, Salazar wrote.

The University of Colorado has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and Colorado State officials say they’re hoping the conclusion of the case will provide clarity on the law as they consider revisiting their own policy and conduct code.

Legislation in Texas, Missouri

As the debate over guns on campus continues to unfold in Colorado, two other state legislatures are now grappling with the issue. In both Texas and Missouri, the fight is heating up. On Thursday -- a date chosen to coincide with the two-year anniversary of the 2007 shootings at Virginia Tech -- protesters took to the Capitol in Texas opposing legislation that would allow guns on campuses.

Among the protesters was John Woods, a graduate of Virginia Tech who dated a woman killed in the shootings. Woods says he’s unconvinced that the presence of concealed weapons on campus would have helped change anything on that fateful day two years ago when Seung-Hui Cho gunned down 32 people before killing himself.

“I have the advantage or disadvantage of having talked to a number of survivors about their experiences,” said Woods, now a graduate student studying molecular biology at the University of Texas at Austin. “Every one said the same thing: It happened too quickly; guns wouldn’t have helped.”

Larry Hincker, associate vice president for university relations at Virginia Tech, agrees. University officials were outspoken in their opposition to failed legislation in Virginia that would have allowed guns on college campuses, and Hincker says no one in the university administration ever seriously considered supporting such a law.

“I think it’s really important for people to understand the mindset of the Virginia Tech campus in the wake of April 2007,” he said. “The notion -- after what happened to our campus -- of other people walking around with guns on their hips in the classroom was one that I don’t think anyone mentally could get their heads wrapped around.”

While the movement to bring guns to college campuses may be growing, advocates have had little success. Legislation allowing concealed weapons at colleges was introduced in 17 states last year, and none of the bills passed.

The poor track record of passage has not deterred Rep. Brian Munzlinger, a Republican from Williamstown, Mo., who sponsored that state's campus gun bill this session. Munzlinger, who said he was approached by students who supported changing the law, says having guns on campus would serve as a deterrent for shooters -- even though they’re often suicidal.

“If you want to look at where mayhem occurs, it’s where you have gun free zones,” Munzlinger said.

Munzlinger’s view is not shared by Chris Kelly, a Democrat from Columbia, Mo., who opposes the bill. Kelly says the legislation, supported by pro-gun lobbyists, is a “test vote” to see which lawmakers are most gun friendly.

“The gun lobby is huge in Missouri,” Kelly said, “and the gun lobby cannot quit while it’s ahead. The gun lobby needs ever more extreme regulation every year.”

Munzlinger has taken campaign contributions from pro-gun groups like the National Rifle Association, but says “I’m also a member of those groups.”

Kelly bases his opposition partly on experiences as a judge in Columbia, home to the University of Missouri's flagship campus, among other colleges. After witnessing the prevalence of alcohol among college students, Kelly says he’s worried about adding guns to the mix.

“College boys love things that go boom, and there is a direct and geometric relationship between the amount of beer they’ve had and the amount they like boom,” he said. “You give them a six pack and boom gets really attractive; that’s a problem."

That opposition is shared by Gary Forsee, president of the University of Missouri System.

“Missouri’s college students should be allowed to learn and exchange ideas in an environment free from the threat of concealed guns,” he said in a statement. “It is hard to imagine that such a proposal could gain support given the magnitude of gun-related tragedies experienced on college campuses across the country.”

Jack Watring, chief of police at Missouri’s Columbia campus, is also concerned about the legislation. Far from helping in a campus shooting situation, Watring says armed students and employees would make a crisis even more complex.

“I’m responding as a police officer to a shooting [in a large auditorium],” he imagined. “How do we know who is the good guy and who is the bad guy?”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Gun Fight

  • Freedom to Defend Ones' Self
  • Posted by cadiddlehopper on April 17, 2009 at 6:00am EDT
  • In every state which has passed laws to allow concealed carry crime has dropped. Do criminals know something we don't?

    The Second Amendment is an individual right, as are all the other rights confirmed in the Bill of Rights.

    Radical proponents of gun-control are misguided. The media representations of gun violence are part of a very sophisticated propaganda. The truth is that guns are used to DEFEND THE INNOCENT (like your family and other nice people you know and want to protect) many more times than they are used by criminals to offend.

    We should all do our own thinking and not be led into error by dangerous corporate media.

  • US tolerance of firearms mystifying
  • Posted by Gavin Moodie , Principal policy adviser at Griffith University, Australia on April 17, 2009 at 6:45am EDT
  • Nothing makes the US seem more foreign to me these days than its acceptance of private individual ownership of firearms. Like University of Missouri System President Gary Forsee, one might think that all the experience since Columbine argues against extending gun ownership, reinforced by Mexico’s current problems with weapons bought from gun dealers in Texas, California and Arizona.

     

    I would give the second amendment a heavily restricted meaning preliminary to it becoming obsolete, as has the antecedent provision in the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

  • Hey Clem - You mean Faux News?
  • Posted by Scott on April 17, 2009 at 7:45am EDT
  • I guess I'm really a radical. I don't think that college students should be toting around loaded weapons in an environment where alcohol - legally consumed or all too frequently, otherwise - is regularly abused, further diminishing their judgement.

    Do individuals have the right to bear arms? YES. Does society have a right to place reasonable regulation on that right? YES. Will some people ever accept that? NO.

    The MU police chief asked a legitimate question (about how an officer arriving on the scene of a shooting incident is supposed to know who the bad guy is if multiple people are armed and shooting). Answer the question, please.

  • guns on campus
  • Posted by Guido Stempel , distinguished professor of journalism emeritus at Ohio University on April 17, 2009 at 8:45am EDT
  • The thought of students in a classroom with guns ready to shoot an intruder is freightening. When I was in teh Army I learned there were people who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a rifle after a week's instruction. Putting concealed weapons in campus in the hands of untrained novices is stupid.

    I have to wonder what's next from the gun advoctes--perhaps a law permitting concealed carry weapons in churches?

  • Just Call Me Professor Baggy Britches
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on April 17, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • A complete statement of the Second Amendment is …

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    I’m certain I would not feel secure were it not for the fact that I know we Americans have “a well regulated Militia” to protect us, not only from foreign invaders, but also from the excesses of our own government. Furthermore, the Second Amendment says nothing about registration or licensing of firearms or a minimum age of ownership. If we were required to register our firearms or if it were necessary to be licensed to use them, associated data bases would be readily available to government bureaucrats who would then have all the information they needed to confiscate our weaponry.

    I, therefore, rest easy knowing I am protected by a Militia of men and women whose ages range from pre-teen to, well, there is no upper limit … and spanning an extraordinarily broad spectrum of intellectual capacity, mental stability, and Mitilia-type expertise. That’s what’s great about America!

    I believe the right to carry a concealed weapon – and many of my friends do – is part and parcel of the responsibility of Militia activists. Therefore, enabling every high school, college, and university student to carry a concealed weapon 24-7 cannot come soon enough for me.

    Check these out …

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge8aZqgxV7Q

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjC0t2MWlwA&feature=related

    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4937731n

  • Questions answered (re: comments)
  • Posted by JJR , Librarian/Tech Services at Texas Woman's University on April 17, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • Per the commentor who asked:

    "The MU police chief asked a legitimate question (about how an officer arriving on the scene of a shooting incident is supposed to know who the bad guy is if multiple people are armed and shooting). Answer the question, please. "

    1) Most such active shooter situations are already over by the time police arrive.

    2) If police do arrive in the middle of the gunfight (highly unlikely), then they need to order all parties to drop their weapons. Those that comply: good guys. Those that keep shooting: Bad guys who need to be shot.

    Re: Guns in church

    1) In a Colorado church, a concealed carry permit holder saved many lives by cutting short an armed rampage of an individual who was clearly intent on killing as many people as possible.

    Re: "Can't hit Broad side of a barn"

    1) Most people I know who carry concealed take that responsibility VERY seriously and devote time to the practical shooting sports like IPSC or IDPA, and even pay for expensive training through professional organizations like Tiger Valley or FrontSight.

    Re: Drunken college students

    1) We are not talking about drunken students toting guns. We are talking about individuals 21 and up who are trusted by the state to carry concealed everywhere else in the state but must for reasons of political correctness go disarmed when they step foot on a college campus. Only the law-abiding with permits obey these bans. Criminals intent on murder and armed robbery ignore them as they don't give a d*mn about measley "weapons" charges.

    This entire article is horribly slanted towards the prohibitionist position. The language used portrays the inherent biases of the author in very revealing ways. Proponents of concealed carry are "advocates of guns on campus", while those in opposition "include law enforcement experts and gun control advocates"...as if there are no law enforcement experts on the other side (which is a lie). Campus police may be reticent to endorse Concealed Carry, but that is because they answer directly to University Presidents, and it may not be politically wise to state their true opinions as law enforcement professionals. Rank and file police officers strongly support concealed carry laws.

    Trotting out survivors and friends/family of VA Tech victims...I am deeply sorry for their loss, but these folks are not experts. They've been traumatized by a horrible event and it's only natural that they have an aversion to all firearms everywhere, but this is not a rational response nor sound public policy. While having a concealed carry permit and a concealed handgun will not guarantee survival in an active shooter scenario, it will dramatically improve the odds of survival; not just of the permit holder but all of those arround him/her.

    I hope this law passes in Texas and is not held up by court challenges by prohibitionists who are merely helping criminals keep their potential victims disarmed. The right of self defense is an essential human right; It is not "granted" by the 2nd Amendment, it is merely recognized and guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. It is not an anachronism, it is timeless.

    RE: "Reasonable restrictions", there is already a permit process for concealed carry in Texas. That's the only "reasonable restriction" there need be.

    Texas has had concealed carry since 1994, and our crime rate has dropped since then. Expanding concealed carry to Texas campuses will only help in reducing campus crime. In the day-to-day reality, there will be no visible change after the law goes into effect, if it is passed. Concealed carry laws mean an individual is only justified in drawing their weapon from concealment if they are threatened with immanent death or grevious bodily injury.

    I predict the law will pass, become the norm, and after 10 years people will marvel that it was ever a controversy to begin with.

     

  • Firearms on campus
  • Posted by Jim Blackburn on April 17, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • It is difficult to imagine a more frightening combination than youthful naivete, inexperience with conflict, close quarters, the strong possibility of alcohol consumption and access to guns. It is obvious that one armed individual can cause a great tragedy. Several untrained and inexperienced armed persons would likely lead to even greater tragedies. Anyone who perceives otherwise has probably not seen, much less participated in, a firefight. Jim Blackburn

  • Posted by Math Prof on April 17, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • 1. A lot depends on the details of who is allowed to carry a gun. I do not know much about this, but I think those of us with concerns should start learning more and advocating for firmer requirements if they are needed. I personally think the requirements for driving a car should be much higher than they are now.

    2. As a matter of academic freedom, shouldn't I be allowed to ban guns in my classes?

    3. Guns won't deter the nuts cases from killing. They will just strap bombs to themselves and set them off in the middle of a crowed lecture hall. (This is also why tougher gun controls won't be effective in this regard either, athough I support an assualt weapons ban for other reasons.)

  • Competing Distortions
  • Posted by Steve Petkas , Associate Director of Resident Life at University of Maryland on April 17, 2009 at 1:00pm EDT
  • This to me is a fascinating and desirable controversy that is associated with two undesirable distortions of reality, each one potentially persuasive against the other. The first is that events such as Columbine and Virginia Tech are frequent occurences, highly probable, and dozens of like incidents are in the queue just waiting to blossom. Nothing could be further from the truth, but the mediated treatment of such events, as with any form of spree killing, would prompt those who lack any critical thinking ability or knowledge of these events to the conclusion that death awaits on every corner or campus. With such an pernicious forecast in mind, who wouldn't understandably want to dispense with any form of weapon, and likewise, who wouldn't want to be equipped as an individual with available self protection that relied on no delay in response time whatsoever?

    A world without guns is a childish fantasy. As for the second impulse, never mind the media distortion, it is precisely this self sufficiency that is the ultimate persuador for those who see concealed carry as viable, and in truth in many states it has proven to be so despite the fact that mainstream media pays absolutely no mind to this fact while obsessing over the rare spree killer.

    The second distortion is that which appears to me in several forms in the article and resulting comments: the horrified leap to the conclusion that more people with guns in their possesion inevitably means bodies lying in the streets. Ridiculous! Such hysterical doomsaying has not proven to be the case in those 36 states that have adopted shall issue laws for concealed carry, and I doubt anything different would be the case should such liberties be carried over onto college campuses. This is not solely a matter of age; I have known sixteen year olds that I would trust with my life, and 40 year olds that I would not trust out of direct sight.

    I for one would be intrigued at investigating the possibility of dispersing the self sufficiency of self defense among a much wider number of my fellow citizens, on college campuses as well as in other environments. I would entertain this with certain premises, such as the lack of any contradiction with existing state law, the requirement of orientation to both the firearm and the lawful provisions concerning use of deadly force in self defense, the requirement that the holder be 21 years of age with no violent criminal convictions, and with respect to misdemeanors, no DUI or DWI citations, pleas or convictions. With these premises, I would readily consider the proposition of concealed carry on campus.

    I myself do not know what the "right" answer to this issue is, but I know that the best answer is an inqusitive and critical treatment of the question without all the predictable and tiresome hyperbolic rhetoric. The assertion of drunken boys loving "boom" is a dismissive treatment of students as immature and impulsive louts, and in my view speaks more about those who peddle such generalizations as rationales for their positions than anything else.

  • How about some numbers instead of feelings?
  • Posted by Engineering Grad Student on April 17, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT
  • Let's talk about the situation in Texas. H.B. 1893 seeks to remove carry restrictions currently in place on CHL holders on university campuses. CHL holders in Texas are 21 years of age or older, have not committed felonies or certain misdemeanors, and undergo hours of safety and proficiency training with their firearm. The full list of preliminary requirements is here:

    http://www.texasonline.state.tx.us/NASApp/txdps/chl/common/jsp/welcome.jsp

    The Texas DPS has compiled statistics from 1996-2007 on the violent and non-violent crime conviction rates of CHL holders and that of the general population. The data can be found here:

    http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

    There were 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 2, 1, 0, 1, 1, and 4 convictions for murder by CHL holders in Texas each year from 1996-2007. To shed some light on this data, there were 462 convictions for murder by non-CHL holders in 2007 alone. About 1.6% of adult Texans have a CHL. Non-CHL holders in 2007 were nearly 1.9 times more likely to be convicted of murder, and that is the worst year on record for CHL holder murder convictions.

    For all of the Anne Hudgenses who are "not in a comfortable position" and all of the John Woodses who think "[t]he idea that somebody could stop a school shooting with a gun is impossible," (Houston Chronicle, Mar. 29) I'd respond with the following: your feelings are not as important as the right to self-defense, and people exercise that right every single day, no matter how "impossible" it may seem. Texas CHL holders are safe and reliable, and even if you choose not to carry, one of them might pick up your slack.

  • firearms on campus
  • Posted by Gary B. , Associate Professor of Social Work on April 17, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
  • I earned money for college as the gun department manager in a large sporting goods store. I still own firearms and I shoot firearms. I believe I am well trained in the use of firearms. I also worked for over 20 years as a social worker in an urban hospital /trauma center, including 4 years of evenings entirely in the ER. I've also trained and served with the police "Crisis Response Team."

    Trust me when I say that I could not begin to recount for you all of the horror and stupidity, and ignorance, and carelessness, and well intended but disasterously bloody "outcomes" that I have SEEN resulting from such conspicuous and fanatical embrace of "our right to keep and bare arms." I have had the blood of innocents on my hands, and I assure you that is no idiom. Guns DO NOT belong on college campuses. What about MY right to feel secure in the class room?

  • Posted by Engineering Grad Student on April 17, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT
  • Gary, do you suppose that the students at Virginia Tech felt safe in their gun-free zone right up until the moment that Seung-Hui Cho illegally shot more than 30 students to death while illegally carrying weapons? At least nobody had a legally concealed a weapon on campus.

    There is a right to self-defense, not a right to feel a certain way.

  • Gary B
  • Posted by DFS on April 17, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT
  • You say, "Trust me." I don't trust you, and this is why: you assert without any documentation. Bull instead of facts.
    Where is all of this "horror" and "stupidity"? We don't know -- we only have your statement that such exist. You do not mention the multitude of cases where the brandishing of firearems has led to crime deterrence. Besides, not all criminals are stupid; when they know that they are more likely to be shot at, they move on down the street to someone else.
    Will someone else please take the time to read John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime?

  • Alcohol and concealed carry
  • Posted by Jack Olson on April 17, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT
  • Some commentors have voiced concern about the dangerous combination of alcohol and concealed carrying of handguns on a college campus. Please note, concealed handgun licensees in Texas are prohibited from carrying concealed handguns after having ANY alcohol at all. Nor can they carry their guns into any establishment whose main business is the sale of alcohol, even if they themselves drink none. By the way, a licensee cannot carry a concealed handgun to any athletic or other campus special event. Of course, a scofflaw might flout these restrictions, which creates the same enforcement problem a handgun ban does.

  • The Community of Disarmed Scholars
  • Posted by comatus on April 17, 2009 at 5:00pm EDT
  • It's always interesting to read what faculty really think of their charges and customers. Apparently, centuries of acculturation and billions in "investment" have created islands of crazed amoralists so consistently drunken that they must be debarred possession of weapons lest they lay waste to all around them: an arena of special concern. Why anyone would live near such a place? Looked at from outside, these testimonies seem adequate justification to consider shutting the places down. For the children.

    Look for steadily dwindling applications and sinking funding. It takes a special kind of person to want to live in the little world you've imagined yourselves. Very, very special, if you take my meaning. You'll enjoy talking to each other. Won't that be nice and safe?

  • Firearms don't cause criminal behavior but they can slow it down
  • Posted by Idealist on April 17, 2009 at 6:45pm EDT
  • The people that framed our constitution and laid the building blocks of our country recognized that… one’s right to defend one’s self was a God given right that no government or King should be able to dismiss. Furthermore they believed individuals or a collection of individuals had a duty to protect themselves from an oppressive government.

    Today we have the enlighten few that believe that we could give up this liberty and we would “feel” safe. In reality, if we give up this liberty, we will lose all our freedom. These are not new words, but are perhaps more timely than ever. Disarming has not worked anywhere.

    Rights and responsibility go hand in hand. Murderers don’t obey the law. They are not concerned about the law, your safety, your rights, permits, or anything for that matter. Mass killings are not rational. Even one person harmed is a tragedy. One person harmed because it is illegal to defend themselves is a travesty. Each of us has a responsible to ourselves, our families, and to people we do not know, to protect each other from harm. Criminal acts by definition are actions outside the law, meaning that without the rule of law to influence behavior there is only ones conscience and or the deterrence of force. Since irrational behavior drives murders deterrence of force is the only protection.

    <While Colorado State officials acknowledge that legally carried weapons are now permitted on campus, the university made no changes to its student code of conduct to reflect the change. The code still maintains that a firearm, “even if legally possessed,” cannot be used “in a manner that harms, threatens, or causes fear to others.”> It might be interesting to note, each of the items stated of the Colorado State student code have legal mandates making the student code toothless. Concealed weapons used to harm, threaten, or intimidate are “assault” by firearm by definition, which in turn would revoke that person’s right to legal carry and in many cases possess a firearm.

    All the emotional issues aside, murder and mayhem is not preventable by removing legal gun ownership! No matter how many times you say it, the new media sensationalizes it, your government officials hint at it, and the screaming liberals chant it; it still is not true!

  • Guns, Gun Laws, and Causation
  • Posted by EB on April 17, 2009 at 11:15pm EDT
  • Some of the comments above state that concealed carry laws have reduced crime because in states that have enacted such laws crime has gone down. But crime has gone down in just about every state and large city since about 1990 or so. Simply put, we cannot conclude that concealed carry laws have reduced crime just because crime went down after they were introduced. Crime also went down in places where they were not introduced. The causal relationships between guns, gun laws, and crime are so much more complex than that.

  • Kill the Baby to Save the Bathwater
  • Posted by Jerry , Professor at Midwest College on April 18, 2009 at 6:15am EDT
  • This is a ridiculous conversation. Since when do guns make the life cycle of an amoeba, the design of bridge, or the interpretation of a poem easier or more safe to study? Stop using my educational system as a chess piece in a political game. While I'm sure gun rights extremists would love to see every student carrying, I doubt the average NRA member who sends his/her kid off to college hopes that their kid sits next to a pistol packing co-ed in Freshmen Composition. The question of one's right to own and carry guns is a legitimate argument worth having. The demand for students to be able to carry guns is a ridiculous ploy to score points in that argument. Just stop being silly and stop shooting for outrageous outcomes, that might well end badly, simply because the time seems politically opportune to shoot.

  • Posted by Engineering Grad Student on April 18, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • Jerry, the right to self defense isn't a political game, and invoking the "university campus as sacred ground" argument is silly. There is no difference between a campus and any other location people spend a lot of time visiting. The only ridiculous ploy at work here is your effort and desire to have anyone believe a typical scenario if the rules change will include a pistol-packing co-ed in an introductory composition course -- how many of these people, aside from the prof, are over the age of 21? Please be realistic.

  • Posted by Jeff on April 18, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT
  • "“Missouri’s college students should be allowed to learn and exchange ideas in an environment free from the threat of concealed guns,” he said in a statement. “It is hard to imagine that such a proposal could gain support given the magnitude of gun-related tragedies experienced on college campuses across the country.”" End quote

    This should have read ""“Missouri’s college students should be allowed to learn and exchange ideas in an environment free from the threat of concealed guns, carried lawfully for self-defense” because that is what you are talking about here, correct? Because you already have the unlawful carry of guns on campus in order to cause mayhem and murder. Only the law-abiding obey laws. So until you have the capacity and the resources to ensure that every person who steps foot on campus is NOT carrying a firearm you are just making the statement "We prefer you don't bring a gun to campus, but really can't stop you" I am sure that will stop a potential murderer in his tracks. This is a classic example of valuing symbolism over substance. We live a world where bad things happen to good people and there isn't anything special about a college campus that makes it exempt. Except that if you want to kill a bunch of people you can act with impunity until the police arrive. Three minutes is a long time to wait for help and is an outstanding response time for the police ,hopefully they won't stand arround for an hour waiting for backup.

    This simple fact is this:

    The number of shooting victims is directly proportional to the amount of time it takes a good guy with a gun to show up and force the shooter to stop. The police hardly ever get on scene before the shooter is finished and most kill themselves as soon as someone with a gun confronts them.

    BTW Associate professor it is "Bear orArms" not "Bare Arms" that’s what co-eds do when it gets warm outside.

     

  • The Good Guys Don't Shoot Cops
  • Posted by Mike123 on April 19, 2009 at 8:30am EDT
  • Regarding the police chief who wonders how to tell the difference between a bad guy shooting students and a good guy shooting the bad guy:

    The good guy won't shoot you or point his gun at your officers. If his tactical response plan is to shoot everyone with a gun in the room, then that is a bad bad plan on many levels. For example, what if the good guy is an off-duty officer from another jurisdication? What if the gun the student was holding was a cell phone? With Law Enforcement leadership and thinking like that, it is a good thing the LE stays outside for a couple hours and waits for the shooting to stop, like law enforcement did at Columbine and most recently Binghamton NY.

  • following up
  • Posted by Gary B on April 19, 2009 at 6:15pm EDT
  • One reason I cautiously enter such debates is my awareness of fanaticism by some "pro-gun" forces. The arguments here reflect some of that. But I also don't fully trust some folks in their capacity to debate this topic without threat of escalation.

    Since 1966 when I purchased my first item of significant and sustained value, a Marlin 39A, and 1968 when I was hired to work at Gateway Sporting Goods where I soon became manager of the gun department, I have listened to - and advocated a few of - a multitude of blind & stupid arguments from both sides of the "right to bear arms" debate. Both sides.

    Whether you "trust" or doubt that I personally have witnessed death and injury due to the careless or accidental or criminal use of firearms on multiple occasions is a thin excuse to simply ignore and deny a reality that can be readily confirmed in the public record. In fact from 1982 to 1986 I worked in the ER of Brackenridge Hospital in Austin Texas. (I worked in another university hospital from 1996-2003) But it could have been St Louis, or Phoenix or Seattle. I don't have to rely on the public record to remember at least 3 children killed accidentally while playing with a parents handgun, a woman shot as she sat in restaurant by someone "dry firing" (showing off) a 1911 Colt in the alley way on the other side of a 2x4 wall, another shot in his own bed by a neighbor "defending himself" in an adjacent apartment, or the multitude of other shootings of adolescents and adults: both accidental or through criminal action.
    Geeze, it was just a year ago that someone walked into a city council meeting in Missouri, shooting and killing a number of people: a minor point in the news is that one of the weapons he used was taken from the police officer he killed in the parking lot. He used that weapon to kill another officer before even reaching his intended target. But I’m not suggesting we disarm cops. I am saying that the use of a firearm in self defense is more complicated than most would suspect.
    Indeed the gun lobby is making this debate about guns on campus a political game, just another brick in the wall, and frankly I’ve become more concerned about some of my gun toting neighbors than total strangers in dark parking lots. It reflects the dummying down of American into polar reactionaries that see issues as black and white, liberal or conservative, (or socialist!) pro-gun or anti -gun, pro-life or anti life, with me or agin’ men. There is naivety on both sides of the debate.
    Look, if you want to attend the university and feel the need to carry your weapon into class, I will suggest that you are entirely welcome to take the course work online. If the state legislature wants to make my classroom a test case, fine, but maybe they might first do away with the firearms ban in the statehouse, and the court house and then the church, and hell, polling places, bars and high schools.
    Geeze, as an educator, I recognize that this is a complicated debate, but I am appalled by the narrow minded and fanatical embrace of seemingly simple solutions (like the carrying of firearms or banning of) by otherwise bright and intelligent people. And that’s why I don’t want you bring your firearms into my classroom.

  • My Art History Book is over 600 pages.
  • Posted by CCProfessor , ART at Midwest Community College on April 19, 2009 at 9:30pm EDT
  • Maybe I can use it to protect myself when I get caught in a cross-fire.

  • Posted by Engineering Grad Student on April 20, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • Gary, as an "educator" trying to engage in a "complicated debate" it'd probably serve you well not to characterize your opponents as fanatics. We are, after all, not the ones more afraid of neighbors in our community than strangers in dark alleys.

    Frankly, you seem more interested in making arguments from authority (we're glad you can supply anecdotes from 1982-1986 and 1996-2003) than in data compiled from all violent crimes. It's a sad commentary on your participation in this "complicated debate" that the closest thing to meaningful quantitative data you provide is your employment history.

    Suggesting that someone interested in not being the next victim of a violent crime take online classes is, in most cases, the same as suggesting they not bother with higher education. Is that really the sort of idea an "educator" should bring to the table? Fortunately, we're not relying on your consent in this matter, because no legislation I'm aware of provides a classroom instructor veto. You're just going to have to continue to live in fear of your neighbors, and perhaps one day soon, your students.

  • Posted by Right to Live on April 20, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • I will never understand why someone else's purported right to carry a weapon any time and any place should outweigh my right NOT TO BE SHOT.

  • If I Only Had a Gun
  • Posted by M. Nubia-Feliciano on April 20, 2009 at 6:30pm EDT
  • Please see the various Youtube videos that feature the 20/20 special, "If I Only Had a Gun". You can also go to the ABC.com website to see the full episode. Gun experts, military personnel, and police all strongly oppose (or at least have strong reservations) about enabling "civilians" to carry guns on campus. The vidoe and accompanying testimony speaks volumes of how ill-advised it is to support such legislation. We can have an academic discussion about whether or not carrying a gun is a right, but when you see the policy brought to life, I hope you will come to the same conclusion I did: my children will not stay in a home or attend a school where guns are present. Only those who train every day to handle guns - like law enforcement - are entitled to carry a gun...and should be considered the "militia" referred to in the constitution.

  • follow-up
  • Posted by Gary on April 21, 2009 at 8:45am EDT
  • EGS, et al,: My intent here has been to contribute to and extend a responsible dialog on an important issue.

    I've not attacked anyone here. I have however been attacked for expressing my opinion. My referencing specific employment was a pointed response the suggestion here that I was a liar.

    An earlier post conveniently limits the portrayal of the public record to the narrow statistics on convictions of concealed carry permit holders in Texas. That was a fair start. But it is limited in relevance to the debate. I am not worried about permit holders initiating a criminal action in class. (Although the state statistics don't fully assure any confidence.)

    But (EGS) you have gone on to embellish your position with the challenge that "we're not relying on your consent in this matter." And then you flippantly suggest that I should live with a generalized FEAR of neighbors and students,because I have the audacity to speak out about something I feel strong about? Might I reasonably percieve such suggestion as intimidation? In fairness you might carefully reflect on my earler characterization of "concern about" as opposed to (your) "fear of." That is an important distinction: CONCERN verses FEAR. And that differential may be significant in this overall discussion.

    But I will stand by the suggestion that there are SOME people in this argument who have proven they can not be trusted with facts or rational dialog on this issue. SOME. And if that suggestion somehow fits uncomfortably, it’s only because that someone chose to embrace the persona. Otherwise it's water off a ducks back...

    In spite of some valid anecdotal accounts, there is NO convincing evidence that a classroom will be any safer if I or my students (over the age of 21) are allowed to arm ourselves. On broader examination, there appears to be evidence to the contrary. And I don't want guns in my classroom.

    I will clearly acknowledge that there are many upstanding, intelligent, well trained and well prepared individuals out there who have their concealed carry permits and who are ever vigilant of the responsibility that accompanies such authority. Some are dear friends, some are family, and some are students. And I'm not remotely arguing here that their permits should somehow be revoked. But I still don't want them bringing a firearm into my classroom.

    You may assert that you don’t need to rely upon my consent. But perhaps you do. One form of consent we still rely upon in this country is exercised in the polling place. And I intend to encourage everyone I know, student, faculty, administrator, staff, parent, friend, and family alike to contact their legislators to remind them of their ultimate accountability in the polling place. Which I expect will remain a gun free zone. (Or I guess, "target," depending on perspective!)

    What I dread is even well intended people, armed with, and in, ignorance.

    that is all.

  • Glass houses may shatter in an instant
  • Posted by Idealist on April 21, 2009 at 4:00pm EDT
  • Although I don’t personally agree with Gary’s opinion, I support his God given right to express it. A civilized approach to disagreement is appropriate in this forum. Personal attacks and digs are just childish. Enough of that subject!

    I disagree with his assertion on a few minor points. The truth is, only Students over 21 will be able to legally carry. I doubt that individuals lawfully carrying concealed weapons will change in number very much, if any, on campuses. Many people are not prone to carry on campus anyway. Most responsible gun owners, who can legally carry, will certainly not bring attention to the fact. These are not the people that scare me! These people value their lives and those around them enough to protect them should that moment in time present itself.

    Life is precious and chocked full of dangers. One of those dangers is the occasional person(s) that have so little regard for your life that he/she decides to take it. In the flash of a mere thought you will survive or not. My rights certainly don’t outweigh others rights, but my right to lawfully defend my life is not outweighed by your right to feel safe either. The odds of a campus shooting are not that great, but neither is an earthquake occuring today today at 12 noon. Thinking that it can't happen is foolish. Being purposely unprepared is an individual choice. A choice that should be levied on everyone!

  • Missourian here
  • Posted by NancyP at School of Medicine on April 21, 2009 at 5:45pm EDT
  • Most pro-concealed-carry-law advocates seem to believe that they are Cool Hand Luke and that they will easily outdraw and kill the assailant and save the day. Truth is, unless they have extensive law enforcement training and experience in the most violent districts in the US or as regional SWAT specialists, or they have comparable experience in the military using small arms only, they are at a disadvantage. The assailant knows what he intends to do. The bystander isn't thinking about being under threat until it happens, and then must assess the situation, decide what to do (talk to gain time? run? warn people? assess hostage situation and call for help? shoot?), and then do it. Frankly, I think that 80% of people would freeze or follow the crowd, 15% would act ineffectually or put other bystanders at increased risk, and 5% of people might both make the correct decision and act effectively. The trained people who want concealed-carry licenses have them - the amateurs are likely to want to get into the act.

    One thing that should be kept in mind - if the concealed-carry license holder is wrong and kills an unarmed person, that license holder is looking at murder or manslaughter charges in 95% of cases. Even if the former license holder avoids jail, it is likely that he will be beggared by lawsuits. Police get the benefit of the doubt - amateurs do not.

  • NancyP
  • Posted by DFS on April 22, 2009 at 4:45pm EDT
  • Thanks for the cariacature. So, we are all now "Cool Hand Lukes"!
    Let me gently remind you of the ending of that movie -- Cool Hand Luke was killed with a gun, while he was unarmed, by a prison guard captain.
    If Luke had been armed, there was no doubt he would have defended himself.

  • stereotpes and intellegent debate
  • Posted by Gary on April 23, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • DFS, Nancy, et al, Unfortunately, stereotypes and caricatures are easily thrown around on both sides.

    For those throwing them out there, such labeling potentially diminishes the veracity of anything worthwhile they might have to contribute. For those on the receiving end, such labels offer sufficient opportunity to avoid the facts of the issue and take the discussion to other places. The point is such labels threaten to, at least temporarily, to put an end to intelligent debates.

    The “Cool Hand Luke” (loved that movie!) metaphor could take us many directions: the unarmed Luke was killed by the evil sheriff; (we can’t trust police / authorities / elected officials and we must be armed to defend ourselves against such outrages) the mirrored sunglasses symbolically means that we are all reflected in (and responsible for) the sheriffs (public officials) behavior; Luke was imprisoned and treated inhumanely (by the system , police, courts, lawyers) for a non-violent crime: (of destroying parking meters;) it’s somehow “cool” to defy authority(“Hey, Look what I can do!” & “JackAss”); or hey! It’s just a movie! (“Shut up and eat your popcorn!”)

    But my “take away moment” from the movie is the recycling of the sheriff’s favorite explanation for anything that’s in opposition to his way of thinking: “What we have here is a failure to communicate.” Of course, defiantly, those were also Luke’s last words. Guns do have a way (through history) of rather permanently putting an end to disagreements.

  • You're right, Gary
  • Posted by DFS on April 23, 2009 at 3:15pm EDT
  • And if youi're the Gary B., above let me just insert my saved and protected response to your earlier post in response to mine from you:
    "Thank you for venturing forth again in response. I knew that you had some actual grounding in this debate, despite the statement I made earlier about not 'trusting' you. I just wanted to know your basis.
    Yes, there have been unfortunate consequences of an armed public, but what is not reported, and therefore is not immediately realized but us all, are the innumerable instances where gun ownership has deterred the overall impact of violent crime.
    You must intuitively know this is true. And I intuitively know that innocents will always be killed because of our constitutionally protected freedom to possess arms.
    And this is our conundrum, now. There must be some other way to protect our lives, immediately, in spite of a popular tendency to pass prohibitive and unenforceable laws for expediency. After all, we want to protect our lives, while the scofflaws will tell us to go to hell, and then kill us.
    Thanks for your reasoned response. I don't have all of the answers, but please keep in touch with us."
    (Oh, and as an aside, I think it was the warden who observed that there was a "failure to communicate." Was that actor's first name Strother?)

  • Continuing Discussion
  • Posted by Steve Petkas , University of Maryland on April 23, 2009 at 6:15pm EDT
  • I have appreciated the continuing discussion on this topic. Much good and sincere thought expressed along with a few charicatures (Cool Hand Lukes....serously?!).

    I am an avid hunter and shooter and practice enough to be proficient although nowhere near the extent that some writers have deemed necessary, such as the constant training of military and policer personnel. But with training in mind, I would like to portray a scenario for consideration.

    Imagine yourself in a conference room or a classroom with a number of students, a scenario in which I often find myself. Now amidst that activity, the group suddenly hears the audible BANG....BANG,BANG.....BANG.
    Perhaps a scream, some running and doors slamming, accompanied by sporadic further reports.

    The first impulse of course is to clear the room and get out, yet you cannot tell where the disturbance is coming from exactly. Then through the window in the classroom door an individual is seen to come down the hall with a weapon, and he shoots a student who emerges from another class right in front of you.

    At Va Tech, there were several scenes where faculty or students witnessed exactly this scene, possessed no avenue of retreat, and literally tried to bar the door with their bodies, or desks, or hold the door handle as the assailant attempted to pull the door open, shoot through it, or enter.

    I would submit that the majority of folks who might be armed in such a situation, witnessing this event exactly as it happens, would likely herd their fellows into the least exposed corner of the room, stand near the door and try to block or lock it, instruct those with cell phones to call 911, take hold of their weapon, and shoot it if and only if the assailant was attempting to or successfully entering the room with the obvious intent to harm one or more within. I know that is exactly what I would do were I entitled to such a defensive capacity. If I were to shoot, it would only be at close range as I or another person was in imminent danger from the aforementioned assailant. We are not talking about wild shootouts here, and believe me, even as sporadically as I practice, I could ward off an assault with a handgun under such circumstances, hoping every second for the arrival of the authorities.

    In consideration of that scenario, I sincerely ask those who have expressed doubts here, if you put yourself in the situation that I have described, with no police anywhere in sight, no assessment of when or whether they would arrive, and knowing of several recent spree killing events in which authorities spent precious time staging and organizing outside such scenes, seeing your students huddled terrified and screaming in the corner of the room and yourself in between them and this stranger seeking entry, would you really prefer not to be armed?

    If the answer is yes, then I ask that you place yourself in the scenario that I described and tell us what it is that you would do. All the eloquence, statistics and the hypotheticals aside; what do you do?

  • my final answer
  • Posted by Gary on April 26, 2009 at 7:00pm EDT
  • Hi Steve, Your question is reasonable, and I have thought about what I might do in such situation. More than once. We should all be aware of our environments. (When flying, I actually pay attention to flight attendants and safety instructions, I locate the nearest exit and I dress in natural fabrics. I have no fear. It is just what I do.)

    I trust what you say for yourself. I respect your frame of reference. I believe that you might well be able to “ward off an assault with a handgun under such circumstances.” But my 30 years of professional practice, much of that working with people in crisis and in close association with law enforcement and emergency services, I do not share your confidence however in imagining what “the majority of folks who might be armed in such a situation,” would do. Seeking to be as responsive to the specifics of your proposition, I have to admit I am much less concerned about what the majority of armed individuals would do than what the minority of those, even legally armed, individuals might do!

    I will share here, briefly, acknowledging MY imagined plan is unique to my campus / classroom environment while pointing out that it is rather contrary of you to ask us to put hypothetical’s aside while asking us describe our response to a hypothetical situation. But here goes.
    First, understand that all the classrooms I use are located underground in a finished limestone quarry beneath our university campus. Walls are solid limestone or concrete block. Because of the rather valuable digital support available in each classroom, each door has a lock on it from the inside.
    In the hypothetical offered, I will admit that I would not care to be trapped, but the reality is my rooms have one way in and one way out: there are no windows. How do I turn a disadvantage to an advantage? I lock the door. (Quick and easy) I then barricade the door with the long tables, which fortunately are not bolted to the floor. I call 911 thanks to the schools arrangement with a particular cell phone provider to wire our underground areas for cell coverage. I also e-mail the campus security and city police with specific information as to our location, circumstances and who is present and any information I may have gathered about the gunman.( Either through personal observation, ongoing sounds, or feedback from the students.) I also keep those lines of communications open for constant updates. I gather the class in the corner 90 degrees from the door: while this is actually closer to the door, it is out of any direct line from the door and potential penetrations of the door by gunshots. Perhaps behind a secondary makeshift barricade built more to keep the students focused on doing something than any real sense of security. I then turn out the lights. It is very dark in the underground with the lights out. If the gunman succeeds in entering the room, he will be at significant disadvantage as his eyes adjust to the dark. (I would convince the 2 biggest guys in the class, to stand nearby to nail the guy if he succeeds in making entry. Meanwhile I cower in the corner sincerely wishing I had a gun!) I would also draw upon and share assurance from the reality that I’ve personally been involved in trainings with local law enforcement and emergency responders, knowing that in this jurisdiction the policy is not to wait and see, but to enter and confront.

    Both ERs in which I’ve worked have had shootings on the premises that resulted in deaths. In both cases there were armed and uniformed police within 200 feet (although not in line of sight) of the shooting at the time of the shooting. In both cases, the shooter escaped the premises. (I was not on duty at the time in either situation.) On another occasion I was in my office, in a mental health clinic when a man walked into our lobby and shot and killed his wife. We locked our doors and called police. He left immediately and was later apprehended at home. And his legally purchased handgun was recovered.

    When I worked in sporting goods, the manger took in two handguns on trade for a new hunting rifle. The Walther P-38 and 9 MM Astra were both war souvenirs’. The next day as I entered the guns into the inventory I discovered both were loaded with a round in the chamber. (And probably had been since 1945.) I was not pleased. I can also recall being present at gun shows twice when guns were accidentally discharged in spite of the prohibition against loaded firearms. And in my college dorm, the night before Pheasant season opened, a farm kid who’d grown up around guns, accidentally blasted his roommates down pillow into a fluffy eternity.

    OK, one last personal observation: some years ago while working in the ER, an improperly restrained prisoner viciously attacked a police officer. In the melee the officer’s gun, a 38 revolver, became dislodged and fell to the floor. I was about 10 feet from the assault, perhaps 5 feet from the gun and I knew that other officers had already been summoned. The officer was severely bloodied having been struck across the face with a broken chair, but he was resisting the assault. For a moment I wondered what to do: the assailant had seen the gun on the floor but was still beating the officer as I picked up the revolver. I immediately understood this guy would likely go for the gun and I was quickly calculating my own response. I knew this officer and he had had talked about carrying .357 rather than the issue .38 special. Considering the threat, I quickly imagined shooting, and imagining through and through penetration with down range trajectory, unobstructed into a crowded triage, or through the 1” sheet rock wall that separated the hallway from the full waiting room: I ran. I ran back into back into the ER and into the staff lounge where I stashed the gun into one of 50 wall lockers. When I came back out, two officers had arrived and were struggling to take the assailant to the ground. He was eventually cuffed and properly restrained. From start of the assault to end, no more than 3 minutes had passed.
    For weeks, I had people suggesting variations on, “I’d of shot the SOB.” The cops on the other hand were rather appreciative of the action.

    In church today our opening hymn included the verse,
    “God, teach us peacemaking in every role.
    In each relationship make peace our goal.
    Yet give us insight that keeps us aware
    Justice and mercy in balance to share.

    Insight and awareness is invaluable. That is what we should be arming our students and faculty with. Not Glocks and Rugers and Smith & Wessons.

    If situation such as what occurred at Virginia Tech or Illinois happened with twice the frequency, the overall threat would remain quite small. Technology, TV and the internet makes the world seem small and remote threats immediate. If I were to live in FEAR of such incidents, I might arm myself, but I’d likely never leave the corner of the basement for fear of the multitude of even greater threats that pass every day.

    I remain clearly unconvinced that allowing concealed firearms on campus assure ANY increased measure of security. In fact I believe that they would likely constitute an increase in the overall measure of danger across ALL college campuses. Gary B.

  • Gun Violence
  • Posted at Virginia Tech on April 27, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • I hate gun violence just as much as the next person. I am a former police officer of 5 years, before returning to academia. I am well aware, that when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away. I do not understand why someone would take away my right not only to defend myself, but potentially colleagues?

  • understanding?
  • Posted by Gary on April 27, 2009 at 5:00pm EDT
  • I can appreciate the frame of reference from someone who may have been directly impacted by the slaughter at Virginia Tech. Even "statistically insignificant" numbers are very powerful when they are representative of a particular and personally familiar individual or location. But not even the NRA has been able to twist the statistics to demonstrate convincingly that the "concealed carry" of firearms on campus would diminish any particular or potential threat. And I do believe that the presence of concealed weapons on campus would in fact exacerbate the general level of overall threat.

    Don't you see, the lack of understanding (as you describe it) is part of the overall problem. To frame "the prohibition of guns on campus" so narrowly as a challenge to your right to defend yourself or your colleagues is where your argument fails. The capacity to defend ones-self must be considered in a much broader sense than simply arming ones-self. The shift in reference is essential to the earlier suggestion that we might also seek insight and awareness as a means of defense.

    You talk about YOUR right to self defense: What about MY "right to life," (threatened by perhaps well intended people who may not understand the nature of any particular threat) "liberty" (intimidated and silenced by armed class mates who may possibly see my politics, sexual orientation or religion, as a threat) and "the pursuit of happiness" squashed by the implicit sense of threat and dread provoked by the arming of classmates and faculty against any potential, anonymous, unidentified, and as yet only a speculative threat.

    Can you understand that?

  • Gary: I hope it's not your final look at this
  • Posted by DFS on April 27, 2009 at 5:15pm EDT
  • That was a good touch, about the verse from your church's hymn. Here's another, from Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton , Colorado. He was speaking to the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on Thursday, April 23, 2009. Included among his remarks was this gem:
    "Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
    Your words are empty air.
    You've stripped away our heritage,
    You've outlawed simple prayer.
    Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
    And precious children die.
    You seek for answers everywhere,
    And ask the question "Why?"
    You regulate restrictive laws,
    Through legislative creed.
    And yet you fail to understand,
    That God is what we need!"
    He went on further: "As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High Schoolprayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain.. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge..... Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone!
    My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"
    Don't believe it? Then go here:
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/scott.asp

  • columbine testimony
  • Posted by Gary on April 28, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • Context is significant: this testimony given 10 years ago in 1999, was in the immediate aftermath of the shooting at Columbine High School.

    The whole of Mr. Scott's testimony was significant and strategic: he was responding in part to the many people who had sought to blame the NRA for the shooting. He did not like this deflection of blame. He was clearly establishing that the shooters were individually responsible and that the blame should not be falsely shifted for political gain.

    But in his testimony he was also expanding a larger measure of responsibility to society in general, as well as political leaders for our broad MORAL failings. In his testimony, the shooting is described by him as a "spiritual event" and a manifestation of the moral shortfalls of leadership as well as a generalized moral decline in society. The NRA, as a convenient scapegoat is no more and no less guilty than each and every one of us. From his perspective: to blame the NRA is to deny and avoid our own personal accountability in such tragedies.

    I doubt that his solution to the prevention of such future tragedies would be to arm high school teachers as metaphorical shepherds of the flock... My sense is that he is challenging us to look for something smarter, something better, something more lasting and personal than cold steel or hard plastic. Amen.

  • Continuing Discourse
  • Posted by Steve Petkas at University of Maryland on April 29, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT
  • I remain impressed with the continuing discourse here and the investment of thinking.
    Wished I'd returned to it sooner.

    Gary, I applaud your depth of deliberation on these issues and questions and the sincerety of your perspectives, althought I cannot find myself in agreement with all of them. My "hypothetical" was only so much so, it was based on survivor descriptions of actual events at Va Tech.

    I appreciate your forethought about the specifics of the environments in which you work, your continuing situational awareness, and the concern these display for those around you. The features of your physical environments pose some advantages compared to those in which I work. I think it necessary for all who work with young people these day to give some proactive thought to such scenarios, no matter how low the probability that they would ever become reality. And in the interest of truth that probability really is very small.

    I share your concern over the varied range of responsible and capable handling of firearms and the potential that no matter how resolute, human error produces accidents. I would not argue that point at all. This is why I teach firearm safety and do so with full knowledge that only inhuman vigilance totally accounts for human fallibility. Even with that reality in mind, I reach a different conclusion.

    I posed the hypothetical to inquire of one phenomena that I have witnessed over and over again, not 100% reliable, but fairly so. I have found that the far majority of those who oppose such freedoms as right to carry and the self sufficiency of self defense have not really ever perceived themselves to have ever been in sincere fear for their safety in a situation in which such a sufficiency might have made a difference. Those who have later found themselves in such fear, have almost all subsequently changed their minds. That is my own anecdotal experience, for what it is worth.

    As to your many recollections and observations, I stand in sincere respect for the fact that your many experiences over life have led you to a different conclusion. As such, it is one with which I would never argue. Would that all would give such questions as these the degree of consideration that you and a number of other contributors to this interchange have displayed.