Armed college students mean fewer victims

Q

qlajlu

New member
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_5496672,00.html

Which is safer? More guns or fewer?

Armed college students mean fewer victims

By Glenn Reynolds
April 21, 2007

On Monday, as the news of the Virginia Tech shootings was unfolding, I went into my advanced constitutional law seminar to find one of my students upset. My student, Tara Wyllie, has a permit to carry a gun in Tennessee, but she isn't allowed to have a weapon on campus. That left her feeling unsafe. "Why couldn't we meet off campus today?" she asked.

Virginia Tech graduate student Bradford Wiles also has a permit to carry a gun, in Virginia. But on the day of the shootings, he would have been unarmed for the same reason: Like the University of Tennessee, where I teach, Virginia Tech bans guns on campus.

In The Roanoke Times last year - after another campus incident, when a dangerous escaped inmate was roaming the campus - Wiles wrote that, when his class was evacuated, "Of all of the emotions and thoughts that were running through my head that morning, the most overwhelming one was of helplessness. That feeling of helplessness has been difficult to reconcile because I knew I would have been safer with a proper means to defend myself."

Wiles reported that when he told a professor how he felt, the professor responded that she would have felt safer if he had had a gun, too.

What's more, she would have been safer. That's how I feel about my student as well (one of a few I know who have gun-carry permits). She's a responsible adult; I trust her not to use her gun improperly, and if something bad happened, I'd want her to be armed because I trust her to respond appropriately, making the rest of us safer.

Virginia Tech doesn't have that kind of trust in its students (or its faculty, for that matter). Neither does the University of Tennessee. Both think that by making their campuses "gun-free," they'll make people safer, when in fact they're only disarming the people who follow rules, law-abiding people who are no danger at all.

This merely ensures that the murderers have a free hand. If there were more responsible, armed people on campuses, mass murder would be harder.

In fact, some mass shootings have been stopped by armed citizens. Though press accounts downplayed it, the 2002 shooting at Appalachian Law School was stopped when a student retrieved a gun from his car and confronted the shooter. Likewise, Pearl, Miss., school shooter Luke Woodham was stopped when the school's vice principal took a .45 from his truck and ran to the scene. In February's Utah mall shooting, it was an off-duty police officer who happened to be on the scene and carrying a gun.

Police can't be everywhere, and as incidents from Columbine to Virginia Tech demonstrate, by the time they show up at a mass shooting, it's usually too late. On the other hand, one group of people is, by definition, always on the scene: the victims. And if they're armed, they might wind up not being victims at all.

"Gun-free zones" are premised on a fantasy - that murderers will follow rules, and that people like my student, or Bradford Wiles, are a greater danger to those around them than crazed killers like Cho Seung-hui. That's an insult. Sometimes, it's a deadly one.
Click to expand...
 
If just one or two of the victims involved in this tragedy were carrying, it would have turned out a lot different.

Fly
 
What gets me is the anti gunners saying that if a victim has a gun it's more likely to be used on them. I find it difficult to justify this statement after the first 15-20 dead. If even one person of those that were cornered and murdered, especially the professor who died blocking the door, had a gun, this situation would be different. Even if the person carrying didn't have the will to use it, they could just as easily hand it to someone who did. Mind you, with the police and government advocating a lay down and give them what they want attitude, I'm not sure how many people would've pulled the trigger on this madman. Flight 93 is a prime example of a "I'm not going to take this anymore" attitude. It saved countless lives on the ground because they stood up. Had they a weapon themselves, who knows if they would've actually made it out alive.

When America finally gets back to "I won't be a victim" attitude, I believe the magnitude of events such as these will change dramtically. I am responsible for my life, security, and safety, and I encourage others to take this attitude as well.

I can't even believe the words of an ex FBI agent on the Glenn Beck show who said "people shouldn't have to worry about their safety, that protocols should be established by the government to protect citizens". Very fanciful thinking in this reality. Where are the resources for this? And if it took place, we would be nothing but slaves controlled by our government, dependent on them for our safety and security, and everything else after that. The Founding Fathers recognized this fact and gave the power to the citizens in the 2nd Amendment.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde
 
You'll rarely find a murder victim who'll tell you that he/she wouldn't have fared better, had he/she been armed.
 
I know I'm preaching to the converted, but how many people would be dead at VT if law abiding citizens were allowed to carry firearms on campus? Probably a lot less. And I'll bet all the baggie pants home boys who had guns probably ran like the cowards they are.
 
I don't think you'd find "homies" there...they're too busy being on the street "keeping it real" to ever go to school. Heck, they probably never even finished high school unless they got social-promotions...you know, for their self-esteem and all that BS.

But getting back to guns in the classroom, from what I can tell by looking at various states and CHL stats, CHL holders are only about 3% of the qualifying population of a state -- a very small amount (so much for "all those guns on the streets" BS), so applying that to a classroom of 32 students, you might find 3 students who were carrying (maybe more, maybe less, and aside from the professor who probably would NOT be carrying due to being a anti-gun liberal as most academics are).

So if there HAD BEEN 3 armed students in that VT classroom, and they all acted, that's 3 against 1.

And that sure is a MUCH better chance than they all had in reality.

-- John D.
 
What's up with the two blatantly racist posts in a row? What an odd time to choose to air your dirty laundry.

But getting back to guns in the classroom, from what I can tell by looking at various states and CHL stats, CHL holders are only about 3% of the qualifying population of a state -- a very small amount (so much for "all those guns on the streets" BS), so applying that to a classroom of 32 students, you might find 3 students who were carrying (maybe more, maybe less, and aside from the professor who probably would NOT be carrying due to being a anti-gun liberal as most academics are).
Click to expand...

Check your math... 3% of 32+1 people is almost exactly 1 person that statistically would be carrying (assuming students are just as likely to carry as the qualifying population at large.. I suspect it is smaller but have no basis for that contention)
 
Assuming that the 3% ratio for the general population in CCW states is correct, it would be lower on a university campus. A large percentage of students are under 21 and can't own a handgun, so this would drastically reduce the percentage of CCW carriers. If 3% of those over 21 carried, that's still a small number on campus.

Still, odds might be good that there would be 1 gun carrier in 3 classrooms and with luck, 2 in a single room at some time. That at least increases the odds that someone will engage the active shooter. That could result in the shooter's demise, keeping him busy while others escape, causing him to retreat or flee and in the worst case, the demise of the CCW'ing student who would likely be killed or injured if they were defenseless.
 
SecDef,

You're right...3 would be 10%...my mistake.


BillCA,

Good point, but remember that lots of older "non-traditional" students are going back to school...and that # is increasing.

-- John D.
 
Good point, but remember that lots of older "non-traditional" students are going back to school...and that # is increasing.
Click to expand...

I think non-trads (specifically older students, like myself) only make up at most 35% of enrollment at most universities, many only there part-time. Considering high freshman/sophomore dropout rates (meaning a disproportionate number will be freshman/sophomores at any time), you're still looking at a huge percentage that will be barred in most states from carry, then figure a small percentage of the remaining will actually bother to get a permit, then figure that at least some percentage of those wouldn't bother to carry anyway if allowed.

However, this is not a bad thing. Interestingly enough, I've used this as an argument with some anti-gun folks that can't seem to get it through their heads that allowing concealed carry (with permit) on campus won't mean students running around left and right with guns. It would mean a small percentage...a handful per building...who would be armed. Which in some cases may be all it takes to stop an attack like this or to at least dramatically cut the death toll. It doesn't take 30 armed students in a room to stop something like this...it just takes one. Though perhaps two would be preferable.

So yeah, I tried to dispel this notion they had that in a situation like this suddenly a lecture hall full of students would all whip out guns at once, leading to mass chaos. Which was obviously idiotic. I also argued that when you get down to it non-traditional students as well as those with concealed carry permits (and thus an ever larger portion of those who're both, I'd wager) are more likely than the average joe to be either current/ex-LEOs or current/ex-military...in other words, to have a decent amount of training beyond whatever is mandated to get a permit.

Of course, do you think any of this persuaded anybody? Of course not.

Not that it matters much anyway. School shootings are right above "anvil falling from sky" on the list of dangers facing society. We really shouldn't be arguing that students be allowed to carry because of gunmen on a rampage...we should be arguing it for day-to-day self-defense. I know I leave the labs here at midnight or one in the morning far too often...not a huge issue (this being Montana) but I'd hate to be a student at a school located in a large metro area. Crimes ranging from simple assault/mugging to rape/murder aren't unheard of on campuses across the country. Even this one.
 
In my Criminal Justice and Criminology classes at ASU, (since the VT incident) I have found out that many of classmates (about a third) have a CCW, but I have yet to find a fellow student who would carry at school if it were legal. :confused:
 
I teach in a small college (about 1400 students) in a rural area. I have a CCW, but like most colleges, this one prohibits anyone but LEOs carrying on campus and I don't. I've given this a lot of thought over the last week or so and read a lot of discussion about it, pro and con.

I agree that campus 'gun free zones' are insane. However, I also understand why the idea of students carrying on campus would make many faculty/staff extremely uncomfortable - you wouldn't believe how weird and stressed even mature students can get around finals time. In fact 'mature' students are often putting up their own money (instead of Daddy's) and/or have a much clearer idea of just how important their grades are. They can get even more stressed out than the kids when things aren't going well.

Colleges are also far more vulnerable to financial threat than most people realize. Excepting those few institutions with really hefty endowments, most small liberal arts colleges are only one major lawsuit away from serious trouble. To a college administrator, this is a Hobson's choice - no matter what they do they will be wrong - and liable. You can't blame them for taking the choice with more of a 'consensus' behind it.

I think we should be arguing for a third choice: CCW PLUS rigorous, continuing training, psychological checks that exceed those required by law, strict regulations about storage and severe penalties for allowing theft or loss of control of a weapon. I don't think anything less will ever be acceptable to most colleges.
 
Said it before and I'll say it again

This merely ensures that the murderers have a free hand. If there were more responsible, armed people on campuses, mass murder would be harder.
Click to expand...

It's not rocket surgery... the ban crowd would like to make it a such, but it's not.
 
Well.....

I've taught university-students for years. In the long run - while a godsend for situations like VirginiaT - college students Carrying?.....well, I don't think it's a good idea in the long run and would likely cause regular shootings. It's an environment where youth for the first time are unsupervised, living in close-quarters with one to three roomates (and there are frequent problems between them), drinking to incredible excess at times or doing drugs in some cases - (and some have real problems with alcohol) and also learning for the first time what "true love" is (which of course it isn't) and its concomitant severe mood swings, jealousies, intense anger over rejections etc - plus the difficuties some have - very severe - with newly diagnosed psychotic mental illnesses (this is the age they "present")- and of course there are all the difficulties a good number can have with academics and the great stress this can cause; throw handguns into the middle of all that and......

For similar reasons, car-insurance companies charge an arm and a leg to insure this age-group - not real stable age.

An important point if you're in your late fourties and, more so, in your 50s, is that the age of maturity is continually being pushed back - and freshman and sophmores are more akin to what we were in mid-high school. They really are kids for awhile in many cases. I and many faculty have noted this the last few years. You may have an image of yesteryear in terms of maturity-levels. They mature markedly in most cases by senior year, but it's not there often for awhile.

My view of the question anyway.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top