Osler's Razor

As someone who teaches college, I can say without hesitation that the thought of wondering which students and/or colleagues might be packing heat terrifies me far more than being weaponless on some possible day when a deranged person mightpull out a gun and start shooting on my campus.

Partly it's a matter of odds. The probability of an Amy Bishop or Seung-Hei Cho on my campus is low. But if we add a daily mix of concealed weapons, carried by people who chose to be armed at all times--which means, I would think, a pre-disposition to seeing danger where it might not lie ... well ... the odds just went up. Exponentially.

The thought of people being allowed to carry guns on campus is so egregious to me that I would quit teaching if that day came ... partly because I would be overwhelmingly saddened that the world view of college-as-overtly-dangerous could codify into reality.

And partly because I could never look at a class of students the same again. I just can't imagine a rousing discussion of underlying assumptions and how they affect writing an effective argument while we're all wondering, "Who.has.a.gun?"

And ... "I wonder what her/his mental state is like these days?"

Jennifer

P.S. I have a relative who's been in psychiatric hospitals twice but still has a license to carry a weapon (in his state). Have you read ADA laws about mental disorders and the right to attend college lately? Due to rights of privacy, faculty are not allowed to know when someone who fits this scenario is in their classrooms. I understand that, but if we put concealed weapons into the mix ... it's scary.

I guess you can tell I feel pretty strongly about this. ;-)
 

As a Virginia Tech graduate who was attending the university when the shooting occurred, this sort of thing makes me cringe.

It always seems to be the same debate, though. Some folks think guns should be banned, others claim that if everyone had a gun, then they could gun down the gunman while not being gunned down by the gun-toting police forces in full red-alert mode. Not to mention that I've seen my share of petty arguments and fistfights, which isn't surprising when you have 18-21 year olds and enough booze to fill Lane Stadium.

Which makes more sense to you?
 

They named the stadium after Lane?
 

I second what's already been said. It does seem that the lives that would be saved on days like yesterday would be offset by lives lost on many, many other days when accidents or arguments turned deadly due to increased firepower on campus.
 

I have to agree with jblack...

Just because you have the gun doesn't mean you will be able to shoot it with precision during the heat of the situation. Police are trained to do such not average gun toting citizens. The odds of you hitting someone innocently are pretty high and I don't want to be that innocent that gets hit.
 

Actually, police are trained not to fire into crowds.
 

Anon - even more reason why guns on a college campus would not be a good idea.

Heck, I don't trust my neighbors with their hunting rifles. They shoot at deer willy-nilly of their back porches. Some times, just because...
 

I don't see any reason not to allow licensed concealed carry permit holders to carry their weapons on college campuses. CCW permit holders already carry their guns into movie theaters (statistically speaking, anytime you're in a packed movie theater there are 3 handguns there), restaurants, shopping centers, grocery stores, and everywhere else they're allowed to carry. Do you feel any less safe at those places? Of course not, because you don't know about it, which is why they're called concealed weapons. Also, statistically speaking, CCW holders have a lower rate of committing felonies than non-CCW holders, so the idea that the benefits "would be offset by lives lost on many, many other days when accidents or arguments turned deadly due to increased firepower on campus," is not supported by the data. There is no good reason why the inherent right to defend one's life should end at the boundaries of a college campus, especially when these places have demonstrated an increased need to protect one's self. We've seen places like Appalachian School of Law, where an armed gunman entered and was taken down by lawful CCW holders before it turned into a Virginia Tech situation. You don't have to like it, but your uneasiness isn't a valid excuse for taking away my right to defend my life.
 

Good dispatch and this fill someone in on helped me alot in my college assignement. Thanks you seeking your information.
 

I'm with Justin on this. CHL holders are trained, qualified, and state certified in gun safety. Plus, most of them are damned good shots. I'm more concerned that some gun-toting hero is going to save my life and then get sued for it.

jblack-how is the thought of trained armed people more egregious or terrifying than the thought of a random crazy person carrying? This way of thinking suffers from the same fallacy as many other gun control arguments--criminals and insane people do not follow gun laws. They do not care about three-day waiting periods, and they do not read the pleasant "No Guns, No Drugs" placard posted on the school doors. Lawful carry on campus will not suddenly allow a crazy person to shoot you at school, he would have done it anyway. To answer you chilling question with another question, who cares who has a gun? The real question is, as you point out, who has a mental illness that could result in homicide? Whoever that guy is, he doesn't care that he's not supposed to have a gun on campus. Clearly the existing laws are no deterrent.

I suspect, and only suspect mind you, that jblack and other's view of guns and gun owners is generally one of fear and suspicion. Guns are dangerous, so people who carry guns "just because" must be dangerous, too. Many people think that only the police should be allowed to carry firearms, because the rest of us must be trigger happy rednecks to own anything except a hunting rifle or shotgun. I suggest that a few of you enroll in some CHL classes and see how the other half lives.
 

I'm mixed. I do not think there is going to be a meaningful increase in the amount of guns on campuses with expanding CCW laws to cover university/college campuses. That is, I don't think people without CCW licenses are going to run out and get them.

Whether a gun can be used to diffuse a situation is... situational. The Appalachian School of Law is one way the situation can go: the students there did not have their guns on them, but were able to flee to the parking lot and return, and it was clear who the shooter was.

In a VT-like situation, where you have students in different buildings, isolated from each other, with no clear idea who the shooter is, the possibility of misidentification and shooting another would-be helpful student increases, especially when you add in law enforcement who (rightly) should shoot first and ask questions later, for their own safety and the safety of others.

In this case, CCW holders would have had little effect, since she had a deliberate plan. By the time anyone knew she was a danger, it was too late.
 

The question is not, however, how any possible situation would play out, and different circumstances of course yield different results. The question is whether there is a legitimate and justifiable (logically or evidentiarily) to restrict the existing privilege to exclude the right to carry on campus. I submit that there is not, and I have yet to hear a compelling argument suggesting there is some reason why the college campus somehow requires more scrutiny than elsewhere.
 

"Other" places are a different environment than school campuses. Consider some examples: a movie theater is a relatively self-contained environment, all within a single building. A shopping mall or department store are much more open and still rather contained within a single space. Campuses are disperse, often stretching over a wide area, with many separate buildings, multiple floors, large open spaces, courtyards, etc.

Tactically, it is very difficult to identify aggressors versus responders in that situation, both for authorities and other responders.

To add to this, the average age of people on campuses are rather on the young side, meaning less experience with which to draw from when making very important snap judgments. Let's not pretend that CCW licenses are that difficult to obtain. Lots of young, relatively untrained college students with guns attempting to prevent a tragedy is a lot different than more seasoned people in a single-building situation with a clearly identifiable aggressor, much like the ASL situation.

I'm not saying that a blanket ban on CCW on campuses is feasible; obviously the decision needs to be made based on other contextual factors, such as size of the campus, population, layout, the availability of alcohol for purchase, etc. Much like the rest of the city.
 

It's not surprising that these incidents invariably bring up the gun conversations. But I think they really miss the point.

Violent episodes like this one are uncommon, they are statistical outliers in the extreme. It would be nice to think of, but there's no way we will ever eliminate them entirely from happening.

But take the number of CHLs Texas granted in 2008 for college-age kids, ~5,000. Roughly 1.2 million enrolled in higher-ed statewide. A generous number of undergrad kids hypothetically walking around locked and loaded is ~1%.

The idea of a member of that 1% being in a relevant location during an already extremely unlikely event is, well, even less of a possibility.

It's pointless to say that armed students/faculty/staff would or would not make a difference. They almost certainly would not make a difference. But I'll admit that it's possible.

The point is that I don't think it's our habit to make or change laws based on the extremely unlikely. But psychotic shooting sprees are not the only crimes that happen on or near college campuses.

There are a lot of robberies, assaults--sexual and not--muggings, even killings that happen that are far from infrequent or statistically insignificant. I think it makes more sense to look at those day-to-day issues.

Going back to the rough numbers above, a few things:

1. I don't see a change that allows CHLs on campus as likely to result in a huge rush of armed students. For the most part, the people who want that responsibility have it already.

2. The possible uptick in violent crime because of the slightly increased presence of concealed handguns is statistically negligible.

3. There is, however, a perfectly real and measurable benefit in terms of violent crimes committed. They just don't happen to catch everyone's eye the way this does--mostly because they don't happen. It's hard to get the press to pay attention to things that don't happen. But the decrease is in the numbers.

Not all of us kids who carry guns envision a return to the old west where every disagreement turns into a shoot out. Some of us just realize that the odds of getting mugged walking to my car after a concert are a lot higher than a faculty member going nuts and killing people.

As a matter of fact, I'd say that most, if not all, of the people who carry CHLs understand the consequences of even displaying a gun in public, let alone using one. And it's not something we want to tangle with unless absolutely necessary.

One of the best components of the CHL course I took was learning ways to minimize risk, identify threats before they become threats, and basically present a target that was unappealing to predators.

But I digress. The "less guns = less crime" argument has been around for a while, and I've never been convinced by the numbers. Every set that "proves" it comes from suspect sources, as does every set that "disproves" it.

So my view is that it's not going to change major events like this one, but that we should still be allowed to carry for our own benefit and the possible--if very unlikely--benefit of others.