Option not to carry a firearm

A bold move

Doc Hoy,

I congratulate you on having the courage to describe your policy to "not permit any weapons to be carried by our students". I imagine you must have known you would generate some objections here.

I know (as the ex-police officer from Anchorage, kraigwy, posted) that some law enforcement agencies do require their officers to be equipped with "the tools of arrest", badge, ID, handcuffs, firearm, notebook, etc. at al times. I also believe such requirements also have exceptions which might have to be taken into account in your proposed policies. An officer on medical leave, for example might be excused from the agancy's 24/7 requirement, and if he/she were attending classes his/her status might be a gray area.

I also reason that no law enforcement agency would be able to extend such a requirement to their officers when they are out of their jurisdiction. An officer outside his/her jurisdiction would be in a position to enforce laws as a peace officer only as a matter of the courtesy of the jurisdiction where he/she is. If I am right about that, you really only need to check with the agencies with jurisdiction in your area. In any event, the top law enforcement officer of each of your local agencies would be able to shed some light and be a good place to start your research.

I believe I understand some of your concerns, and do not quite understand some others, so I hope you will join the debate by starting other threads to discuss the advisability or inadvisability of what you might call an "open campus" where law-abiding and responsible students and visitors are not actively disarmed.

If your concern is about the ability/inability of your institution to disarm law enforcement personnel who happen to be attending classes or selectively allow the arming of only those individuals, that's one thing. If your concern is about whether a significant percentage of your student population being armed and knowledgeable makes your campus safer or less safe, that is something else. I would be interested in how you find the actual truth, which could inform your policy decisions.

It would be a bold administrator indeed who took a stand on these issues for truly valid reasons rather than what looks good in a brochure or sounds good in a sound bite.

I wish you well.

Lost Sheep
 
I agree entirely with what PAX presents. You can't even begin to prevent any wacko from causing deaths of innocents, so why do you think restricting the ability of the victims, the mandated unarmed innocents to defend themselves will do any good?? That's totally illogical.

Better for the innocents to be armed and confront the wacko--They would have a better chance of survival during the wacko's "8 minute rampage".It will be the students who have to face the wacko until the police arrive.

What is your problem with innocents being able to defend themselves?
 
San Antonio Police are required to carry a weapon on them at all times unless there is alcohol in there system (or they used to I don't know if that is still the policy)
 
If I permit police officers to carry a weapon onto the campus even at times when they are not mandated by their policy, then I am powerless to argue that non police officers may not carry.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand this sentence. Why must the officer's policy require them to carry at all times in order for your campus policies to allow police officers to carry at all times? And why would a campus policy allowing police officers to carry while off-duty render you powerless to restrict non law enforcement from carrying concealed?

Why would you want to restrict police officers, on or off-duty, from carrying firearms. You are in Virginia, so I'm sure you're familiar with the tragedy at Virginia Tech. The murderer Seung-Hui Cho started his killing spree in room 206 of Norris Hall, killing ten people. What if an armed off-duty police officer had been in that classroom? Or in room 207 where five more people were killed? Or in rooms 204 & 211, where an another fifteen people were killed? What if a trained, armed member of the faculty had been in one of those rooms? What if a trained, armed citizen had been in one of those rooms?
 
To all

Thanks for your answer Dub.

Now to clarify, were it up to me we would not prohibit we would encourage weapons to by carried by any who were authorized. Alas it is not up to me. But I would do that not without some profound reservations.

Our policy reflects two things. 1) The overwhelming desires of our students. 2) The unfortunate effect exerted by lawyers.

No part of this conversation had anything what ever to do with the obvious positive impact of responsibly handled weapons.

To Lost Sheep:

You said, "I imagine you must have known you would generate some objections here."

No. What I was hoping that I would get what I asked for. That was an answer to my question.

In your defense, you did provide a partial answer (for which I am greatly appreciative.) when you said, "and if he/she were attending classes his/her status might be a gray area." The fact that it is "gray" implies that the governing agency understands the limits of their control. Also that they acknowledge the dominion of other agencies.

To Stevens, You said, "your students live in fear of the day that some imbalanced nut comes in to your gun-free zone"

No they don't. The only time students will tell you they fear such an event is when some photojournalist shoves a microphone in their face the day after one of these shootings. And even then, statistics show that most of the students do not fear a repeat of the event, nor were they concerned about the event before it happened. But those students don't get their face on TV. Reason does not sell air time as well as terror.

Pax, You included some good points, "On a level playing field, the typical active killer would be a no-contest against anyone reasonably capable of defending themselves." (Source quoted). Of course.

By the way, in the heat of armed combat, an accuracy rate that approaches 50% would be pretty good wouldn't it?

The problem with a policy that permits weapons in our classrooms is that it would be very unlikely to result in enough weapons to be a functional deterent. When we had no policy, in our entire history, only one person ever brought a weapon into our classrooms (that we know about). That was a police officer who was actually on duty and was required. His weapon would clearly have been permitted by our present policy. I might add that this same officer has had his weapons carry authorization temporarily suspended by his department. He won't say why. His situation is partially behind our reason to examine the policy.


It would indeed be a practicel deterent. The fact that a would-be shooter considers that he might encounter armed defense might deter some, might have prevented some.

Another problem with such a policy is that it would permit people to come into that classroom who may not have much training or experience with handguns. In addition, they may have no training in armed combat. Tell me they won't do more harm than the shooter in a classroom of thirty people. So three people are shot in one of these situations. The shooter shoots Dick, the legal and authorized student shoots Jane, accidentally, and then the shooter shoots himself. Can you imagine trying to explain to Jane's husband that you permitted that student to carry the pistol into the classroom?



Chris in va said, "You're aware that carry is allowed in Utah, right? Heard of any mass shootings there?"

Faulty logic. Show me one researcher who has been able to establish that correlation.

To kraigwy, You said "It is the policy of the Anchorage Police Department ( or was when I was a member, Mar 74- Mar 94) that officers carry at all times within the third judicial District of Alaska."

Did you take it into church? Did you take it to the amusement part with your kids? Did you carry it into the dentists office. Did you take it to the PTA meeting? Or at these times was the weapon safely locked in your car?

To whoever it was who accused me of spending all of my time in an leather chair, I invite you to visit with me for just one day. I am not sure I even have a chair. I work sixty hours per week trying to do what I percieve to be the best ojob I can for my students. Your assumption about me is wrong.
 
To answer your question the answer is YES.
New York City considers it's officers to be on duty at all times.
They are required to be armed and have their badges with them anyplace outside their homes.

AFS
 
Skipping the BS section, yes, a lot of off duty LEO are required to carry when off duty.

As for the rest of it, keep in mind that most shootings happen in "gun free zones" and, as an academic, I'd guess you might have a interesting theory why shootings typically happen in those areas, none of which would involve allowing law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves.
 
I just learned that I do have a chair

To kreyzhorse,

This is just a guess but, the reason why most shootings occur in gun free zones is that statistically there are an awful lot of gun free zones, remnants of the 1990 law. The fact that the law was ruled to be unconstitutional has no effect on private property owners who (right or wrong) continue to prohibit firearms.

To chris in va,

Feb 13, 2007, Shopping mall, Salt Lake City. Five killed, assailent traded shots with off-duty police officer. Finally killed by SWAT. Where is the deterent here?

To AFS,

Thanks for your answer.
 
The agency I retired from (Raleigh, NC) required officers to carry OD while in-jurisdiction, except when 'not practical' or imbibing.

Interesting post Doc. Perhaps encourage those decision-makers to look at what may also happen one day - an armed rampage by a suspect who could not be stopped in a timely manner by enrolled LEO students because the campus had forbidden them to be armed. How would that play in Peoria?
 
A comment on the deterrent issue. I've said this before. If you look at economically motivated actors or other predators with a motive (rapists), firearms have clear deterrent value.

If you look at rampage killers with suicidial intent - deterrence may not be that effective, esp. if they have a grudge against a specific place. If they have a general grudge - just kill women - then it might. They will visit an unharmed school.

HOWEVER - in this second case - carry allows folks a reasonable chance of shutting down the attack quicker. Would the Israeli prof at VT been better off to have a gun and not use his body as a human shield?

The shooting of an innocent vs. training issue is a tough one. I've talked to enough folks to know that even progun folks worry about this. Heck, I worry about this with some posturing folks I know who refuse to train but talk the talk. Psychologically, we know that folks overvalue the risk of harming an innocent even to do good. It is unacceptable to many. I've had folks tell me that they would be OK with me carrying but not some old gun posturer (sorry to be harsh).

Folks also fear irresitible impulse from the young carrier. It is an empirical question if guns in the dorms would lead to more shootings than would be prevented.

The idea that there won't be enough guns on campus. Well, years ago I did a project in OR and TX and found the number of faculty CCW or CHL types was roughly equivalent to the general population. It is equally low!

Anyway, the ban on cops because it mean all can carry makes no sense. They are trained and probably less likely to be subject to irresistible impulse. Let them carry!

As for faculty and students - I'm for that too. The objections, I understand, but rationally carry is for the greater good. However, if you do carry anywhere and think about intervening in a rampage - get thee to training and the range.
 
Here is another scenario

OldCorp,

Thanks for your useful post.

I just did some reading of some research about law enforcement handgun accuracy. Going back to about 2003, about the best you can hope for is 50% accuracy. Accuracy is measured by the number of shots fired against the number of hits on a man sized target. This is measured in a controlled environment tactical situation. Accuracy goes way down in actual field situations. A group in Norway in 2006 exceeded fifty percent but only after situational awareness training. So trained police officers can get one round on target for every two rounds fired.

So let’s say an assailant enters a classroom with twenty students, one of whom is armed with a handgun. The deranged gunman starts firing when he is just inside the door. Statistically the armed student would be in the center of the room. There will be either two or three students between the gunman and the armed student. The student empties his magazine of ten rounds. It is only reasonable to expect five of those rounds to hit the gunman. What happened to the other five rounds? Too much thumb pressure and the rounds go left? Too much trigger finger and the rounds go right? Where are the other students? Did they obligingly hit the floor to give the student a clear line of fire? Did one hero rush the shooter only to be shot in the back by the student? Did a half dozen students head for the door, placing them directly in the line of fire from the student?

So in the aftermath we find that the gunman was a terrible shot and killed no one We also learn that of the five student rounds which missed the gunman two of them hit others students.

And then we find that the school has a policy which permitted that handgun in the classroom. Or that there was no policy whatever to control handguns in the classroom. How would that play in Peoria?
 
we are assuming too many variables. who doesn't practice with their weapon if they plan to carry it? Especially college students. I go to school. I practice almost every day if not every day. I don't sit in the center of the room. And I won't have a problem shooting the bad guy cause I really don't want to die. People run off, duck and get out of line of sight of shooters. That is what they do. They don't stand there and look at the guy waiting to be shot. Its like putting your hand through water in a pool or lake. you move it one direction, and the waves go away from your hand. not towards.
What is scarier is the security at my school is unarmed. They can't do anything if someone came into this school. Nothing. They could die, and call the cops, and that is about it. What is the purpose of said security? To stand around and check ID's and get paid? Useless IMO.
Shooting a student, is a tough choice. I won't talk about what choice I would make, but I am sure it wouldn't be on purpose
 
Statistically the armed student would be in the center of the room.
Click to expand...

No evidence of that, nor does it make sense statistically. You have no idea of the distribution of choice for an armed person as regards seating.

As I said before, if the fear of shooting an innocent outweighs the possible benefit of saving 30 or so - then there is no arguing that point. It is a value judgement based on emotion and liability whores that convince administrators that the financial well being of the university corporate entity outweighs the human toll of lives. Sad commentary on the Devil's deal you make to be an administrator,

Have we yet to see a rampage where a CHL type has killed an innocent? It might happen but we know rampages DO happen.
 
Did you take it into church? Did you take it to the amusement part with your kids? Did you carry it into the dentists office. Did you take it to the PTA meeting? Or at these times was the weapon safely locked in your car
Click to expand...

Yes to all the above, except the locking it in the car. The one incident I didnt I got caught.

I was at a dinner party. I got paged to assist in a dug raid where boobie traps were suspected ( I was on the bomb squad). In route to the call I reallized I didnt have my pistol. I paniced. At the time I was also the commander of the AK NG Marksmanship unit and had some shooting equipment in the trunk of my police car. I rambled around and found a M-18 Smith 22 and two (2) 22 shells. Not the best equipment for a drug raid. I was lucky. Since then I have never been unarmed. Even now, Under HR 218 I carry everywhere. The exception is in Fed Buildings where like all Police Officers, (active and retired) its locked up in a lock box at the entrence. I dont carry on aircraft of course. But since I have my retired badge, I get checked and asked if I'm carrying, I dont, but to my understanding (I dont fly anymore) it was up the pilot. Some want you to carry some dont. Only on few occasions did I carry out of state, In Alaska I always carried on in state flights.

As I mentioned, I retired 15 years ago. I dont know of any changes. I do carry and I believe concealed is concealed, therefor no one knows or will know until the rare (and hopefully never) chance I have to use my pistol.

From the cases I have read (ref: the recient case in Sturgas SD where the State tried to charge a Seattle Cop for carrying when he was involved in a shooting, because SD forbids carrying in Bars) The court ruled for the Cop though the cop had been drinking, he wasnt intoxicated and HR 218 overrules state carry laws.

So I'll keep carrying. It wouldnt effect your class, because if for some wierd reason I attended your class you wouldnt know if I had it or not.
 
Arguing whether or not an armed student would put others at risk if they intervened, or whether or not a few armed students constitutes a deterrent are both immaterial to the issue. Once again, in a free society based on the rule of law, one does not revoke the rights of others based on what they might do or what might happen. If you look at this as a "which policy will end in the best results" issue, you have missed the mark. You don't allow someone to exercise their rights because it will result in a net gain by some statistical measure. You allow someone the use of their rights because you have no concrete reason to deny it.

It is obvious, through the fallacy of your perspective, that you are both an academic and an administrator (regardless of how much work you do or your background).
Chris in va said, "You're aware that carry is allowed in Utah, right? Heard of any mass shootings there?"

Faulty logic. Show me one researcher who has been able to establish that correlation.
Click to expand...

The correlation exists regardless of whether or not any 'researcher' has published it in a paper. You may question the strength of that correlation, or the basis of it's causation, but questioning the correlation on it's most basic level just because no professor with degrees and tenure has signed off on it is myopic at best, and demonstrates the very bias of thinking you deny having at worst.

The very core of the issue is thus: individuals have the right to protect themselves. Prohibiting them from doing so based on their professionalism, or possible lack thereof, is a poor excuse. The rights of the one are not subordinate to the good of the many. Herein lies your fallacy.
 
Doc - interesting statistics that you quoted. But, not being an academic, help me here...what was it that Mark Twain said about statistics?

I was blessed to only be in one deadly force encounter during my career. It was when we carried revolvers, S&W M66's. I had to fire six (6) rounds. None missed. All C.O.M. hits.
I'm terrible at math. What was that hit ratio?

I swear I don't recall thinking that I'm only gonna hit with about half my rounds.

And if I was enrolled somewhere, especially within my jurisdiction, I'd carry regardless of the rules. Silly rules put in place by folks that have never dirtied their hands with society's worst simply don't have a clue.
 
To answer your question, yes. The department I worked for in the 90's had a mandatory carry policy.
This is a prime example of why my kids will be educated at home. To much liberal bias and lack of respect for the constitution and bill of rights. It is every American citizens right to defend themselves anywhere they choose to be. These gun free zones are a joke and should be stopped in public places payed for by ta money. I agree that an indivdual buisness owner has the right to refuse a customer who is armed. However if it is a public place such as a public school, recieving federal money, they do not have the right to stop a student, of legal age, to protect themselves. This is unconstitutional and outrageous that anyone would try to stop it. The anti's in this country, lack common sense. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out how to stop an armed threat. SHOOT BACK!
 
Doc Hoy

Sounds to me that the universitry is engaged in mental masturbation attempting to prevent anyone but a select few from carrying onto university property. The Virginia CCW requirements to obtain a CCW are not minimal or superficial. The applicant must be 21 and that alone will remove a large segment of your student populace.It is logical that the more people with CCW's on your campus the better chance you will have of interdicting a rampage.

Constructing fear scenarios where innocents may be hurt by careless gun owners seems to be rationalization to absolve the university of the responsibility for disarming innocent students and preventing them fromprotecting themselves.I feel this is deceitful.You have responsibilities toward your students.Allow those having CCW's the opportunity to protect themselves.

Virginia already has quite defensible laws for qualifications for CCW holders.
The university should allow anyone with a CCW to carry on campus.Doing so may save innocent lives, possibly yours and others.
 
Doc:
My department required you to carry your weapon, one reload your badge and a call box key at all times off duty. Then came H.R. 218 which allowed carry in all states and possessions of the U.S. To allow officers to protect the citizens and also to protect themselves from felons who they had put away.
On a Sturgis Motorcycle ride a group of off duty out of state officers got into a fight with a group of outlaw bikers in a bar one biker was shot and the officers were detained/arrested I'm not sure which now for having a gun in a bar. The DA declined prosecution as the state law was preempted by HR 218.
and yes I do carry to Church and amusement parks, I even carried to the closing ceremonies of the 1984 Olympics in LA
 
Last edited:
Doc, I don't have an answer to your question, but I do have a question and comment of my own.

Is your facility private, or is it a public school?

Because if it's public, then you can forbid students, & staff from carrying, but not the general public.

I often walk or drive through the campuses of Virginia Tech, and Radford University while carrying.

Just something to think about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top