Guns on campus... a professor's perspective
Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:26 pm
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.
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.
