In the last twenty-three years there
have been numerous incidents of mass shootings on college and public school campuses, resulting in
tragic loss of life, and calls to further restrict gun ownership, if not an
outright ban of weapons. In contrast,
gun rights proponents have suggest that students and faculty should be allowed
to carry weapons on campus. This
controversial proposal varies by locale and in proposed implementation, sometimes
limited to those with concealed carry licenses, and in other cases limited to
trained faculty. The prospect of armed
students and faculty is alarming to many, and their various concerns including
the possible effects on academic freedom, safety to students, and effectiveness
of self-defense are worthy of discussion.
Currently, most college campuses enforce a gun free zone, effectively removing
the right of citizens to bear arms and defend themselves colleges. As a result, colleges have assumed the
responsibility for protecting their students, a prospect that they are wholly
unprepared for. While gun free zones are
effective in controlled environments such as a courthouse, they are
unenforceable in a college atmosphere.
Additionally, these zones have a contrary effect of encouraging active
shooter scenarios, such as the Virginia Tech massacre, since it prevents
individuals from defending themselves against mass shooters, as well as more
traditional crimes such as assault, rape or other violent crime. College students, staff and faculty who meet
the stringent requirements necessary to obtain a concealed carry license should
not be prevented from carrying their weapon, and exercising their
Constitutional right to defend themselves, and others.
The establishment of gun free zones has not
only failed to make colleges safer, but has actually created environments that
are uniquely attractive targets for mass murderers. David B. Kopel, in the Connecticut Law
Review, points out that prior to the 1990 Gun Free School Zone Act, there had
only been seven school shootings in the prior 214 year history of the United
States. As of his publication in 2009, there
had been twenty-eight mass shootings since the establishment of Gun Free School
Zones (Kopel 519). Just as the U.S.
Congress established Gun Free School Zones, many states passed “Shall Issue” concealed
carry laws, creating “objective standards for the issuance of permits to carry
handguns for lawful protection” (Kopel 519).
In the forty-eight states that issue these permits, there are
limitations on its application, such as courthouses, K-12 schools, and
colleges. The establishment of these
Shall Issue laws indicates that legislators agree that “there is a category of
adults who can be trusted to be responsible about carrying a concealed handgun
for lawful protection in almost all public places” (Kopel 521). These two classes of laws establish a
dichotomy in the treatment of citizen’s right to personal defense. Gun free zones actively discourage
self-defense, forcing citizens to rely on the protection of a governmental
agency that, in the case of most colleges, is simply unable to effectively
enforce the ban against aggressors. In
contrast, Shall Issue concealed carry laws encourage citizens to safely own
firearms, and utilize them only in defense against clear and present danger to
their selves or others.
Forty-nine states include provisions
allowing licensed gun owners to carry concealed weapons in public. However, there are limitations on this right,
specifically in the case of government buildings, banks, schools, and any
establishment that sells intoxicating beverages (Goral 42). These restrictions include college campuses
in almost all cases, despite the significant difference between a college
campus and these other locations. In the
case of airports, courthouses, and banks the gun free zone is “enforced with
secure parameters, armed guards, metal detectors, and so on,” according to David
Burnett, spokesman for Students for Concealed Carry (Goral 43). The police presence and metal detectors at a
courthouse ensures the safety of those within its perimeters. When a citizen enters a courthouse, that
citizen relinquishes their right of self-defense to the government, who has
assumed responsibility for them. College
campuses cannot be as easily controlled.
A campus is a rambling affair, with many points of egress and is a
continual hub of activity. A Gun Free
Zone for a college campus is enforced with signage at the entrance and on the
doors. When a citizen is disarmed on a
college campus no such protections exist, and law abiding citizens are placed
at the mercy of criminals.
Removing the restrictions of a Gun Free
Zone from college campuses allows students and faculty to exercise their Second
Amendment rights; it does not establish an armed populace of students. Opponents of concealed carry, such as Jay
Sanguinetti, co-president of Students Against Guns in Education, claims that his
“argument has always been that college campuses have always been extremely
safe” and continues to say “bringing guns on campus will do more harm than
good…it will alter the environment in the classroom and campus police say it
will make their jobs harder” (Wiseman). David Burnet notes that some opponents
of this measure claim that this would “open the door to a ‘wild west’ scenario
of gun toting students taking the law into their hands” (Goral 43). University of Oklahoma President David Boren
believes that allowing weapons on campus “would endanger the safety of our
students, faculty, and staff” (Associated Press). Boren claims that having armed civilians
would add chaos to a crisis situation, and that police would be unable to sort
dangerous gunmen from those armed in self-defense. Representative Ernest Wooton of Louisiana,
who has proposed concealed carry legislation for college campuses, explains
that he is “not trying to arm the campus.
I want people who want their right to carry a weapon to be able to do it
on campus and possibly to defend themselves” (Maloney). He is opposed by Sally Clausen, Louisiana’s
state commissioner of higher education, who claims that there is no evidence
that the “proliferation of firearms would actually make the college safer”
(Maloney). Instead, she suggests that
trust be placed solely in the college police, who have been trained for “such
emotionally and highly charged situations” (Maloney). Wooton counters that his experience as a
former sheriff “leads him to trust properly permitted concealed handgun holders
no matter the situation,” in large part due to the difficulty in earning such a
permit and the unwillingness to lose it due to lawlessness (Maloney).
Claussen’s trust in campus police, and
by extension local law enforcement, is worthy of their dedication to such a difficult
job; unfortunately, in the event of an active shooter on campus, it is unlikely
that police will be able respond in sufficient time. An active shooter is one whose intention is
quite simply mass murder; there are no demands, no hostages and no intention of
mercy. Dick Fairburn, a police trainer
writing for The Police Marksman,
explains that “many of the active shooter incidents we examined were over in
the three to four minutes, much quicker than four officers could be assembled
as a rapid deployment team and hope to find and neutralize the shooter” (Kopel
541). He suggests that the only hope for
stopping the shooter and saving lives in such a scenario is if there is someone
at the scene when the shooting starts (Kopel 541). Ideally, this person on scene is the School
Response Officer, but lacking such a resource the best hope to save lives is
the intervention of a citizen. Mr. Kopel
references as report by the Force Science Research Center of Minnesota State,
which observes that these shooters choose unarmed, defenseless innocents
because they are risk and pain averse.
They are unlikely to be aggressive with police, and if pressed are more
likely to commit suicide (Kopel 542). As
a result the best tactic for a lone officer should be to “close in and finish
the fight with aggression…The idea is to keep the adversary off-balance by
always forcing him to react to your actions, rather than, after contact,
reacting to him” (Kopel 542). Police
cannot be everywhere, and even on a single campus the area that must be covered
by an on-site officer is immense. If the
police cannot engage an active shooter immediately, “lives will be saved if one
or more victims start shooting back” (Kopel 543). Some opponents of armed citizens on campus
will counter that the citizen may miss a shot, and likely will. Unfortunately, even with intensive training
police accuracy in a firefight varies between eight and twenty percent,
partially due to being trained to shoot from twenty to thirty feet away, while
most defensive shots from a civilian are from less than seven feet away (Kopel
543). At this short range it is much
easier to hit a target, but it is not necessary for the defender to necessarily
shoot and kill the attacker. An attacker
who is under fire loses the freedom to carefully aim his weapon and kill his
intended victims, additionally, “active shooters tend to crumble at the first
sign of active resistance” (Kopel 544).
Another point against the use of
concealed carry in a college environment comes from academics concerned with “the
effects of a concealed or open carry environment on teaching effectiveness, the
comfort level of faculty and students, and the chilling effect on the ability
of students and faculty to exchange ideas on controversial subjects and
conflicts, such as grading disputes” (Wasserman 53). Allowing concealed carry does not establish
an open carry environment, nor do most citizens own a pistol, and even fewer
have will be compelled to apply for a concealed carry, or necessarily carry
their weapon consistently. According to
the New York Times, “in 2012, the share of American households with guns was 34
percent” (Tavernise and Gebeloff). The
number of citizens with concealed carry licenses is significantly smaller. In most states, applicants for a concealed
carry license must endure a training session, a personal history questionnaire,
and criminal history checks through the National Crime Information Center and
their state criminal database. These
applicants are reviewed by law enforcement officers in the jurisdiction as well
(Goral 43). In most states, applicants
must be 21 years of age before eligible for a concealed carry. This means that on most college campuses, where
the majority of students are between 18 and 22 years old, three-fourths of the
population is ineligible for the license.
Burnett notes that the number of students who would acquire a license
and carry a firearm on a consistent basis is “on a national average about one
student for every 100” (Goral 42). Such
small numbers of students with concealed carry does not constitute a
significant change in the atmosphere of a campus, and since laws prevent the brandishing
or discharging a weapon except in defense of one’s self or another, it is
unlikely faculty would ever know which students carried a weapon. Brandishing and discharging a weapon without
cause would result in the loss of the permit and confiscation of the weapon, as
well as any punishments the school would levy for commission of a crime on
premises. Lewis M. Wasserman argues that
“where campus rules permit concealed or other carrying, policies should be in
place to ensure that students, faculty, or staff who have behaved irresponsibly
with weapons, or otherwise pose a threat to the safety of others, such as those
convicted of campus alcohol or drug offenses, or other persons, such as those
who have criminal convictions or mental illness are prevented from gun
possession” (Wasserman 42).
Additionally, violations of campus gun regulations should have penalties
such as suspension or expulsion for students, and termination for staff and
faculty (Wasserman 42).
While the national debate over concealed
carry on campus is relatively new, beginning after the Virginia Tech massacre,
it is a long established fact in Utah. Since 1995, the faculty of Utah’s public
universities may possess licensed firearms in their offices, automobiles and on
their person. Additionally, students aged
twenty-one or older, may do the same and may keep firearms in their dorm rooms. As of 2009, there had been no incidents of
misuse of a firearm by a person with a legal permit, nor any instances of
attempted mass murders in any school in Utah (Kopel 529). Including public schools, there have been no
reports of any student, teacher or professor reporting that they were afraid to
speak for harm, or fear of licensed gun permit holders. Since the passage of these laws, there has
been no harm to academic freedom in the state of Utah (Kopel 530). Similarly, Colorado State University in Fort
Collins, Colorado, has established licensed carry for faculty, students and
visitors, though weapons may not be stored in dorm rooms. Likewise, Virginia’s Blue Ridge Community
College has established similar regulations.
Neither institute has reported instances of gun misuse (Kopel 531).
Another argument against allowing
students and faculty to carry firearms is the claim that such measures are
ineffective deterrents to criminal acts.
The International Association of Campus Law Enforcement officers “has concluded, among other things, that there is no credible
statistical evidence to suggest that allowing campus carry of concealed weapons
reduced crime (Wasserman 56). In direct
contradiction to this statement, John Lott and David Mustard of The
University of Chicago performed a study of the effects of right-to-carry
concealed handguns on crime, and found that the National Crime Victimization
Survey showed “80,000 to 82,000 defensive uses of guns during assaults,
robberies, and household burglaries” (Lott and Mustard 2). However, they add that other surveys indicate
that private firearms may be used in self-defense as many as 2.5 million times,
and that “400,000 of these defenders believing that using the gun ‘almost
certainly’ saved a life” (Lott and Mustard 2).
The benefits of concealed carry are not merely anecdotal, however. Their findings showed that when concealed
handguns laws went into effect, murders fell by 8.5%, rapes fell by 5%, and
aggravated assaults fell by 7% (Lott and Mustard 16). Of particular note is the effect of concealed
carry on rape, despite the relatively small number of women with concealed
carry licenses, “the concealed handgun coefficient for explaining rapes is
consistently comparable in size to the effect that this variable has on other
violent crime rates” (Lott and Mustard 20).
In 2007, Amanda Carpenter was raped on the campus of the University of
Nevada by an armed man, “Had I been carting that night, I know I would have
been able to stop my rape,” she says, unfortunately state law prevents her from
carrying a gun on campus (Wiseman). Guns
are an equalizing force, no matter the size of the attacker a gun makes
individuals equal in terms of force. According
to the National Institute of Justice in 2011 there were 414,562 firearm
incidents, a firearm crime accounting for 8% of all violent incidents in the
United States (National Institute of Justice).
While crime rates have significantly lowered over the past two decades,
violent crime is still a real threat, and in many cases had the victim been
armed the crime might have been prevented.
The prevention of traditional crime is
not the only concern for the armed citizen, but also defense against a targeted
attack against the school populace, such as the active shooters discussed
previously. A majority of the school
shootings since 1990 have not been random acts of violence, but carefully
planned and executed assaults. In
the wake of the attack at Columbine High School in 1999, the Secret Service and
the Department of Education initiated a study of the planning and behaviors of
the attackers, this study was titled the Safe
School Initiative (Secret Service 3).
One of the key factors in understanding the school shooting phenomena is
to recognize that it is “targeted violence,”
and is defined by the Secret Service as “any incident of violence where
a known or knowable attacker selects a particular target prior to their violent
attack” (Secret Service 4). These
attempts at mass murder are committed by individuals or groups who recognize
the target presented by a gun free zone that disarms citizens in an easily
accessible environment. The Secret
Service identified numerous characteristics common to these mass
shootings. These incidents were rarely
sudden, impulsive acts. Prior to the
attack, others became aware of the plan to commit the attack. Most attackers
did not threaten their intended target directly. There is no useful profile for active
shooters. Most attackers committed some
act that caused concern. Most attackers
were suffering through significant loss, and many had committed suicide. Most felt bullied or persecuted. They had access to weapons prior to the
attack, and involved other students in some capacity. Most importantly, despite prompt responses
most shooting incidents are resolved before the police could intervene (Secret
Service 12). The Secret Service report
explains that most school-based attacks “were stopped through the intervention
of school administrators, educators, and students or by the attacker stopping
on his own” (Secret Service 27).
One-third of these incidents ended with the attacker being apprehended
by school staff. In one-fifth of the
incidents the attacker simply stopped or left the school, but in just over a
tenth of the time the attacker committed suicide (Secret Service 28). Law enforcement intervention ended the attack
in just over one-quarter of incidents, largely due to the brief amount of time
such incidents take (Secret Service 28).
It has been claimed that armed citizens
do not serve as a deterrent to mass killers, yet in the case of the Columbine
murderers they began their attack while the “school resource officer was
off-campus having lunch – an indication that they preferred not to confront
armed resistance (Kopel 539). Regardless
of their mental state, the killers at both Columbine High School and Virginia
Tech planned their attacks for a year, and several months respectively. In the case of Virginia Tech, the killer
utilized a heavy chain to slow police response.
The Columbine shooters “successfully executed a plan to use explosives
and fire alarms create confusion among the victims” (Kopel 539). In 1997, in Pearl Mississippi a sixteen year
old killer began his day by slitting his mother’s throat, then killed his
ex-girlfriend and wounded seven other students, and was stopped not by police,
but by Assistant Principal Joel Myrick. When Myrick first heard shots he rushed
to his truck to retrieve the rifle and ammunition he kept for such
circumstances, meanwhile the killer using a deer rifle loaded and fired
repeatedly, until he heard sirens, at which point he ran to his car. His plan was to drive to the nearby Pearl
Junior High School and shoot more kids until the police could show up. Instead, Myrick positioned himself to fire at
the windshield, causing the killer to lose control and crash the vehicle (Kopel
544). The killer believed he could
operate with impunity, and understood that as the police responded to the high
school he would be able to continue his murders at another location. The existence of gun free zones directly created
an environment where such psychotic actions are possible.
Gun Free Zones on college campuses
only serve to create the illusion of safety.
The arguments against allowing law abiding citizens who are legally able
to acquire a concealed carry permit from carrying their weapon on campus are
based on creating an artificial difference between the college environment and
the rest of the world. If a citizen is
legally able to defend himself in a grocery store parking lot, then he is
legally able to defend himself in a college commons. If a citizen with a concealed carry permit
may debate politics in a public park without intimidating others with his
weapon, then that citizen may debate grades with a professor without using his
weapon to intimidate. The argument for
allowing concealed carry permits to operate on college campuses are based on
applying the same standards of legal behavior on college campuses as all other
public spaces that concealed carry has already been implemented. One fear of concealed weapons is that it will
chill academic discourse, yet the security measures necessary to establish a
true, enforced gun free zone on a college campus would establish a police state
far more damaging to academic freedom than allowing responsible citizens to
exercise their Constitutionally protected right of self-defense.
Works Cited
Kopel, David B.
""Gun-Free" School Zones: A Deadly Legal Fiction." Connecticut
Law Review 42.2 (2009): 515-84. Print.
Goral, Tim. "Guns-on-campus Bill
Draws Ire of Oklahoma College Presidents." Community College Week 7
Apr. 2008: 17-18. EbscoHost:Connection. Web. 30 Apr. 2013.
Wiseman, Rachel. “Campaign for Right
to Carry Concealed Guns on Campuses Gains Traction.” Education Digest 77.7 (2012): 53-56. Academic Search Complete. Web/ 3 May 2013
AP. "Guns-on-Campus Bill Draws
Ire of Oklahoma College Presidents." Community College Week 7 Apr.
2008: 17-18. Ebscohost.com. Web. 30 Apr. 2013.
Maloney, Stephen. “La. State Lawmaker
Undaunted in Effort to Allow College Students to Bring Concealed Guns on
Campus.” New Orleans City Business (LA):
Legal Collection. Web. 5 May 5, 2013
Wasserman, Lewis M. “Gun Control on
College and University Campuses in the Wake of District Columbia V. Heller and
McDonald V. City of Chicago.” Virginia
Journal of Social Policy & The Law 19.1 (2011): 1-57. Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 Apr.
2013
Tavernise, Sabrina, and Robert Gebelhoff.
"Share of Homes with Guns Shows 4-Decade Decline." The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 9 Mar. 2013. Web. 15
Apr. 2013.
National Institute of Justice. "Gun
Violence." National Institute of Justice. National Institute of
Justice, 4 Apr. 2013. Web. 01 May 2013.
Lott, Jr., John R., and David B.
Mustard. "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns." The
Journal of Legal Studies 26.1 (1997): 1. Print.
United States. Secret Service.
National Violence Prevention and Study Center. The Final Report and Findings
of the Safe School Initiative: The Implications for the Prevention of School
Attacks in the United States. By Bryan Vossekuil. Washington D.C.: Secret
Service and the Department of Education, 2002. Print.
