Guns on campus... a professor's perspective

[KBCraig]

In light of the recent manhunt for a killer on the campus of Virginia Tech, there has been much debate about allowing students to carry guns. (In Virginia, it's not against the law to carry on a college campus, but students and staff are prohibited by school policy.)

A professor at Roanoke College weighs in on the debate:

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/comme ... b/xp-84024

Students, guns and safety

Harry Wilson

Wilson, a political science professor at Roanoke College and director of its Center for Community Research, is the author of a new book, "Guns, Gun Control and Elections: The Politics and Policy of Firearms."

Allowing students who have a concealed weapon permit to carry a firearm on college campuses is an important subject that deserves more serious consideration than it recently has been given in these pages. Whenever possible, we should look to the facts in assessing the arguments rather than rely on emotion.

The arguments made by Larry Hincker and Harry Hambrick ("Imagine if students were armed," Sept. 5) contain some truths but are also somewhat misleading.

Commenting on an earlier essay written by Virginia Tech graduate student Bradford Wiles ("Unarmed and vulnerable," Aug. 31), Hincker says that Wiles "would have us believe that a university campus, with tens of thousands of young people, is safer with everyone packing heat." No rational person would make that argument.

Wiles suggested that he and anyone who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon should be permitted to carry on the Tech campus. That is very different from arguing in favor of the universal arming of students.

In order to obtain a concealed carry permit in Virginia, one must pass a criminal background check, take a firearms safety course and be at least 21 years old. Those requirements eliminate the vast majority of college students. The image of students at frat parties and tailgates brandishing firearms conjured by Hambrick is extremely unlikely.

National and state data indicate that those citizens who have permits, not surprisingly, tend to be law-abiding. A relative few have committed criminal offenses, including a Blacksburg shooting in 1996.

On the other hand, gun-rights advocates point to the Killeen, Texas, mass shooting that potentially could have been prevented by a woman who could not legally carry her weapon into the restaurant where the shootings took place. Fortunately, events such as these are rare.

Wiles' argument that the police cannot protect him at all times is on point. His implication that he might have been better able to protect himself than the police who were outside his classroom seems far-fetched. It is unlikely that his level of proficiency or training would exceed that of numerous police officers.

Certainly no rational person would draw a concealed weapon in the presence of police who already have theirs drawn and are on edge looking for an escaped killer. Officers could easily and reasonably assume that the individual intended harm to others or the police and act accordingly. Anyone who carries a firearm must weigh the benefits and risks and act responsibly.

Hambrick argues that guns are rarely used for self-defense or to prevent a crime because he does not see such reports in the news media. Numerous studies, including my research, have shown that the media rarely report these events, despite the fact that they occur more frequently than most of us would guess. Estimates of defensive gun uses range from 100,000 to 2.5 million annually in the U.S. A reasonable estimate is probably about 1 million.

Because of how news is defined and an anti-gun bias in some media, only those defensive gun uses that result in the serious wounding or death of an attacker are reported. Simply scaring off a would-be attacker does not qualify as news.

Even obvious defensive gun uses are often misreported. For example, the tragic shootings at the Appalachian Law School in 2002 were stopped when students apprehended the gunman. What was reported in only a few media outlets was that two of the students who "tackled" the deranged gunman subdued him with the help of firearms that they had retrieved from their cars.

As a professor, I do not relish the thought of teaching a group of armed students. I am not afraid, however, when I hunt with friends or travel with my sister, who has a concealed carry permit. On the contrary, I feel safe. Should I feel differently if those students were law-abiding citizens who understood firearm safety?

I am also aware that a student, or any other person, who wanted to do me harm would simply ignore Roanoke College's prohibition against carrying firearms on campus. There have been several instances nationwide in the past decade of disgruntled students shooting professors. By definition, criminals do not obey the law.

The prohibition against firearms on campus enforced by many colleges is designed to prevent accidental shootings. I have no doubt that some are prevented. We should also ask, though, if any crimes might be prevented if licensed students were allowed to carry. For example, would any rapes be deterred if assailants thought their victim might be armed?

Finally, we need to remember that those same students who are prevented from carrying on campus may carry in downtown Blacksburg, Salem or any other municipality. If they live off-campus, then they could have the firearms stored in their residence.

[fadlan12]

I just looked up the shootings at the Appalachian Law School in 2002 and some blogs of the outcry over the missing details on how the shooter was apprehended.

So if we the people don't know that a gun was used to disarm a rampaging badguy.... how does the media benifit from not diclosing all the facts?
This reminds me of the story a few months ago where a bystander stopped an employee from stabbing people in the parking lot, He pulled his gun from his car and orderd the man to drop the weopn he complied. The media said he was "tackled" and made no mention of the gun.

It seems like BGs think they are empowered until someone else has a weapon too.

[longtooth]

Liberal media like Liberal Brady will not tell the truth when that truth will weaken their position.

[barres]

[stevie_d_64]

"On the other hand, gun-rights advocates point to the Killeen, Texas, mass shooting that potentially could have been prevented by a woman who could not legally carry her weapon into the restaurant where the shootings took place. Fortunately, events such as these are rare."

I love how they classify her as "a woman"...That "woman" went on to be very effective in getting us where we are today in this state...

[stevie_d_64]

I just looked up the shootings at the Appalachian Law School in 2002 and some blogs of the outcry over the missing details on how the shooter was apprehended.

So if we the people don't know that a gun was used to disarm a rampaging badguy.... how does the media benifit from not diclosing all the facts?
This reminds me of the story a few months ago where a bystander stopped an employee from stabbing people in the parking lot, He pulled his gun from his car and orderd the man to drop the weopn he complied. The media said he was "tackled" and made no mention of the gun.

It seems like BGs think they are empowered until someone else has a weapon too.

The media for the most part would consider it to be a tragedy if the "machine gun" wielding assailant were not given the chance to complete their massacre if someone like us were to step in and stop it...

Thats the irony...

Tragedies sell newspapers and get more air-time...

Preventions get lectures and chidings like:

"We still urge citizens to not take the law into their own hands..."

How many times do we hear that one???

[longtooth]

Preventions get lectures and chidings like:

"We still urge citizens to not take the law into their own hands..."

How many times do we hear that one???

Iduno. Aint got anuf fangers n toes.

[stevie_d_64]

Preventions get lectures and chidings like:

"We still urge citizens to not take the law into their own hands..."

How many times do we hear that one???

Iduno. Aint got anuf fangers n toes.

You never taught woodshop did ya???

[phddan]

Once, just once, I would like to hear one professor on the side of lawful carrying of weapons. Maybe if things get bad enough, but I aint holding my breath.

Dan

[longtooth]

Didn't even take wood shop let alone teach it. I can prove it by looking at my deer stand. Never built no dog house.

[cyphur]

From my perspective, I don't think the professor in that article took an anti-2A stance, nor anti-CHL stance. On the contrary, he defended the lawful behavior and training requirements. He also commented on "law abiding citizens who understand firearm safety".

Not everyone has to be OK with everyone carrying, but this guy is more OK with it than most folks. I don't disagree with him, there are lots of folks who I do not want to see carrying a gun. Plenty of folks who have not a single mark on their record, but are the types that would shoot someone who cut them off just because they act before they think.

I think it was a positive article, especially coming from a college professor.

Of course, I wholeheartedly support carry on college campuses, especially community colleges. Thats where you have a much larger concentration of older more mature individuals mixed in with a younger bunch - some quite able to conduct themselves appropriately, while others can't. Personally I would rather have my Kimber on my hip than not.....

[KBCraig]

Once, just once, I would like to hear one professor on the side of lawful carrying of weapons.

errrr... For a pro-concealed carry view from a professor, read the article at the top of the thread!

Kevin

[jbrett2]

Although not an article, I had to add my voice here. Not only am I a professor, I teach in the "Liberal Arts."

We (students, faculty, staff, administrators, parents, and visitors) who hold CHLs should be allowed to carry anywhere on campus. After all, we are licensed to carry nearly everywhere else. Is there something inherent in the buildings' architecture that causes us to lose the sensibilities we use in areas in which we are permitted to carry? Or does that something reside in the books in our classrooms and offices or the materials in our laboratories?

[phddan]

Hey Kevin,

I did read the article above, and found the authors tone a bit muddied.

[quote]As a professor, I do not relish the thought of teaching a group of armed students. I am not afraid, however, when I hunt with friends or travel with my sister, who has a concealed carry permit. On the contrary, I feel safe. Should I feel differently if those students were law-abiding citizens who understood firearm safety?[quote]

Doesn't sound to me like he is comfortable with the idea of anyone but himself, his sister, and hunting buddies having firearms.

Instead of expressing that he is either for or against carrying, it sounds to me like he is sitting on the fence. Better than against no doubt, but still not an endorsment for.

Thank you jbrett2, I knew there had to be at least one professor with some common sense.

Dan

[KBCraig]

Hey Kevin,

I did read the article above, and found the authors tone a bit muddied.

As a professor, I do not relish the thought of teaching a group of armed students. I am not afraid, however, when I hunt with friends or travel with my sister, who has a concealed carry permit. On the contrary, I feel safe. Should I feel differently if those students were law-abiding citizens who understood firearm safety?

Doesn't sound to me like he is comfortable with the idea of anyone but himself, his sister, and hunting buddies having firearms.

That's the only muddled statement in his piece. The rest of it argues against restricting legal carry. He points out that licensees have had background checks and training, and have a very low crime rate. He makes the point that criminals will not be deterred by a campus ban.

It won't go down in the annals as a great piece of pro-gun editorial, but I thought he was clearly on the side of allowing licensees to carry on campus.

Kevin