College Campuses Are Safe
I recently read an article from an unofficial campus newsletter that began with the statement, “with college shootings becoming more and more common, it almost seems as if we are becoming desensitized.” The author goes on to suggest that the best way to combat this out of control violence on college campuses would be to allow students and teachers to carry concealed firearms. Later, the author asks the reader to “think of how differently the massacre at Virginia Tech could have been” if students and teachers had been armed as well.First of all, that one particular incident would probably have been different; however, it is hard to imagine the result being better if it had erupted into a massive firefight between large numbers of frantic and armed college students instead of one deranged murderer. Perhaps this author has a lot of imagination.
But the bigger issue is the question of campus safety in general. We cannot discuss appropriate policy if we do not understand the current situation. Contrary to outlandish statements like the one made in the opening sentence of this article, college campuses in America are incredibly safe. USA Today reports that between 2001 and 2005, exactly 43 students were reported murdered on college campuses. That is a rate of less than 10 per year, even though over 20 million students are enrolled in college annually. That means that the chances of a student being murdered on a college campus are about one in two million, or about 100 times less likely than a person being murdered in the nation as a whole (the national murder rate is about 1 in 20,000 per year).
Statistics like these should color any discussion of policy regarding campus security. The incident at Virginia Tech was indeed tragic and shocking; however, it was not typical and it is not indicative of a larger pattern. In my opinion, schools should be focusing on other issues with their resources and students should be concerned with other, more realistic threats instead of the threat of being murdered on campus.
“with college shootings becoming more and more common, it almost seems as if we are becoming desensitized.”
Someone ought to remind this author that we don’t live in the Gaza Strip or the outskirts of Khartoum.
The author’s assumptions and assertions are typical reactionary measures that postulate more guns equals less violence. It’s like saying the solution to war is to arm every nation with biological and nuclear weapons.
I bet that the author also believes the 2nd Amendment grants him this right.
sure, statistically. but why can’t i carry a gun if i want to? oh yeah, because its against the law. i guess i won’t be going to that campus. i can’t defend myself? who has the right to tell me that? believe me, i am much more worried about a car accident than a drive-by shooting, but at least i can drive myself.
besides, how is one going to enforce the law? oh yeah, with a gun. typical.
Jesse, I don’t know you, but you shouldn’t be so quick to substitute your personal feelings for statistics in this debate. Facts should play more of a role in policy development than emotions and fear.
You are more likely to be struck by lightning than to be shot on a college campus. Are you going to change your life because of that? Are you going to wear special rubber-insulated shoes for protection? Are you going to stay in your home if there is a chance of a storm?
The reason why the government places restrictions on individuals (such as their ability to conceal dangerous items in certain locations) is for the good of society. The possible benefit to society of you carrying a weapon is almost nothing (even if you could personally stop all ten of the annual college homocides), but the risks of arming student bodies across America en masse are quite large.
“Besides, how is one going to enforce the law? oh yeah, with a gun. typical.”
I confess I am not aware of the specific punishment for violating a ban by carrying a concealed weapon, I doubt that it involves a police officer shooting the violator. It is probably more like a fine of some sort. Maybe probation.
i can’t defend myself? who has the right to tell me that?
No one said that. But advocates of Libertarian Political Thought, which you seem to be of party, would say that not every freedom or right should be left, unabridged, to the individual. If the desired freedom affects too much of society as a whole, and results in a harm to the other members of society, the governmental forces that be have every right to regulate that particular personal freedom.
Having the right to “defend” yourself is different from the “right to carry concealed weapons.” No one is going to stop you from self-defense. But if every individual is “packing heat,” society, as a whole, is in much greater peril.
I am not saying you don’t have to right to think that every citizen ought to carry concealed weapons; however, society is worse off if that opinion were law.
@ S.C. Denney
“No one said that.”
let’s see, what would i do? hide behind a barricaded door? jump out of a window?
stare blankly in the face of a man with a gun?
how do you figure i could defend myself against what has happened at those schools, or anywhere else for that matter?
@ David M. Manes
“I doubt that it involves a police officer shooting the violator.”
police carry guns. if they didn’t, or if no nation had a military, how would one enforce policy? by saying please?
if i raised my gun, it would be more likely that i would be shot. if i refused to surrender my weapon to a police officer.. do you think he would let me go?
also, statistically, you are aware that it is convenient to only cite reports that favors a particular position. when you contrast crime and gun laws as a whole you may have a much different perspective. so while campuses may be the focus of the report, your post is really about something larger… like, the right to defend oneself.
and to claim that government is always right is wrong.
“The possible benefit to society of you carrying a weapon is almost nothing”
then what is the police officer doing down the road? nothing i suppose.
hmmm, maybe you are an anarchist and didn’t even know it.
————
there is something to say for a private residence or institution to make its own rules. such as “no guns allowed, this is private property”….
but we also have to keep in mind that we do have the second ammendment in america (or what is left of it), and it is worth discussing the right to defend oneself. if i could trust that no one used guns, then i wouldn’t feel like i should have to the right to carry. just because someone has a weapon doesn’t mean that they will use it. it is the person who uses a weapon you should be worried about. to assume that if everyone had a weapon society would be more dangerous is preposterous. i guess pencils misspell words right? maybe we shouldn’t have stores so people can’t steal?
you might as well go the full gammet and decide that if only government had all the power in the world we wouldn’t have crime, but there’s no logic there either.
government is made of men, with and without badges. why can’t i have a gun? what have I done wrong? why am i a danger to society because i might carry a gun? if you believe in statistics, then shouldn’t driving be illegal? shouldn’t wars be illegal? or printing money?
i see what y’all are saying, and believe me i sympathize. i practice pacifism in my everyday life. but i am not sure that i could stand idly-by and watch someone commit certain acts of violence. it is a heavy moral question for anyone. if i can’t defend myself, or someone else, then how can i ask someone to do it for me?
i can’t support the military or any police, etc, if i can’t justify the acts that may be necessary for the protection of individuals (not society)
the first tenet of libertarianism is the non-violence principle.
It really boils down to two questions:
Q1. Are College campuses unsafe?
A1: No. They’re actually safer than the average neighborhood.
Q2: Does the idea of having college students carrying concealed weapons have the potential to make colleges even safer, or does it potentially make them more dangerous?
A2: More dangerous.
Jesse, I know that you feel strongly about the right to kill or disable someone before they can kill or disable you or someone else. However, the fact of the matter is that campus security isn’t an issue. The potential for far more dangerous campuses, if every student could conceivably carry a firearm, is far too great a cost. The security factor trumps your personal freedom.
Jesse, I appreciate you for stopping by our blog and offering your comments with enthusiasm. I hope we will see more of you in the future. To continue with this topic, though…
You can dispute my arguments or you can attack a straw man, and dissapointingly, it appears you have chosen the latter. This post was, in fact, very intentionally focused on one specific aspect of gun control which is the issue of concealed weapons on college campuses. It is unwise to jump to radical conclusions with any issue, and it is especially absurd to do so with gun control. Nobody wants to completely abolish the second amendment and pry all the guns from the cold dead NRA fingers. Conversely, nobody really thinks that there should be absolutely no restrictions on who can own weapons and what kind of weapons should be legal to own in the first place. You can make grandiose claims about gun control in general, but it gets farther and farther away from the issue at hand – concealed weapons on college campuses.
As with any policy, we need to look at the macro level, not the micro. On the macro level, the risk-benefit analysis shows that concealed weapons on college campuses would be a bad thing. There is such little benefit that could even be gained, and it would drastically increase the risks to other members of society. On the micro level, it doesn’t really matter what your personal feelings or fears are about this issue.
As to your various statements about police officers and government in general, I have this response: we live under a social contract with the rule of law. This nation isn’t a state of nature where every individual fights and dies for him or herself. I tend not to trust the government with most things, but I trust masses of unorganized people (especially with weapons) much less.
Do gun rights advocates have any real data ANYWHERE that supports the notion that guns=safer communities?
This is a huge issue at our campus (VT) of course. It seems like the big focus has been on faculty identifying distressed students early and making sure that students are notified when even smaller threats might be around. So yeah, it’s about prevention. Counting on strapped students to shoot it out should something out seems like a bad way to go about it.
I like prevention as a method much more than a firefight.
Prevention will also address depression which causes over 1,000 college students to commit suicide every year. Every death is of course a tragedy, but our resources should match the situation; students are 100 times more likely to kill themselves than they are to be killed by someone else on school property.
So many public figures have been assassinated while surrounded by highly-trained, armed guards. Why would anyone with his own handgun on his hip fare any better against someone determined to commit acts of violence?
I don’t trust a lot of college kids with knives in the caf, much less their own guns…
*correction: non-’aggression’ principle
good responses.
i wrote a whole bunch and erased it. since I am jumping to “radical conclusions” i figured id slow it down a bit.
first off:
concealed weapons? where did we talk about this? what about open carry?
also, many people would not want to carry a gun. so it would not necessarily be “all” students.
@Chris McNeal
Believe it or not, yes. I will dig up a link or two.
Open carry would be even worse.
It still couldn’t possibly be able to provide much of a benefit (remember, only 10 college students are murdered in the entire nation every year!)
It would likely lead to even more death if a violent incident did occur on a campus. Fistfights at frat parties could become shootouts, or a single murder could turn into an all-out war.
It would be even more intimidating to the rest of the student population if some were openly carrying weapons. College is first and foremost about learning, and guns are not necessarily conducive to that kind of environment.
So what would happen to me if I were caught with a gun?
Provided I have no history, criminal or otherwise?
Here at IUPUI, the administration has been having round table discussions about gun safety on campus. In IN, students, even those with concealed carry permits are forbidden by school policy to carry weapons. A member of the general public who has a CC permit and and is carrying cannot even be asked to leave under IN law. At the round table discussion, the head of campus security was asked what the best case scenario was in the event of a campus shooting. His answer was that best case they would be on the scene in three minutes. Imagine how many people can die in three minutes. If the shooter is carrying enough ammo, upwards of a hundred could be dead or seriously injured.
What’s the worst case scenario if some of the students who have met the state’s requirements for having a CC permit are carrying that day? Same as the best case if none are. When you see that and then you look at the fact that at most college campuses security is not preventive but reactive, why not give some people a fighting chance? I’m not talking about new standards or different ones from those the law already imposes. The violent crime rate among concealed carry permit holders is 5 times less than that of the general population. CC permit holders in most states have to go through training on gun safety as well as having their fingerprints on file with the local and state police as well as the FBI. These people have a legal right, granted by the state to carry weapons on their person at all times almost anywhere in the state. Why should they be stripped of this right when on campus?
In response to your last argument David, universities in Colorado are not allowed to take away the right of CC permit holders to take their guns with them to school and as you aptly pointed out, only 10 college students are murdered in the nation every year. I’m surprised to see you making a slippery slope argument. What most reasonable gun advocates are arguing for in this arena isn’t that everyone be armed whether they want to be or not, but that those who have taken the steps, gone through the background checks, been fingerprinted, and whatever else their state requires to get a CC permit, not be denied the right to carry their guns with them to class, where the police admit they will not get there in time to do anything useful but count the dead.
It seems to me that the arguments for allowing guns on campus would be convincing, if it were a problem. However, I am still unconvined that it is.
With such a low number of per year deaths due to gun violence, I think the educational environment favor is important to consider. Educational environments should not be pervaded by a multitude of gun carriers. First off, it isn’t an imminent threat and is therefore unnecessary; secondly, it isn’t healthy and conducive to an pedagogical environment.
Where’s the fine line in this argument between reasonable speculation and ridiculous conclusion? Is is ridiculous, as Kyle seems to implicate, to assume that a ordinary fist fight could potential turn into a deadly shooting. Or is it reasonable to suspect that people, in the heat of the moment, could turn to using a deadly weapon, as opposed to their fist? I say, yes; however, I understand that assertion is speculation. But, after all, Isn’t all gun control based on speculation, from both sides of the argument?
I still cannot fathom a time in the future when college students will be packing heat. Are college students really all that responsible? Carrying a weapon is a major responsibility.
so has there been any repercussions for the (Virginia Tech??) university security that had that mock drill recently? Talk about irresponsible!!
My disclaimer. I don’t attend a University. Therefore I do not have to conform to their rules. As for the “social contract” I never signed one.
But krjohns makes a good case for ‘reasonable’ gun advocates.
SCDenney I basically agree, but as for pedagogical, what about gun class?
(Or is that the military?)
‘Are college students really all that responsible?’
Is anyone that responsible?
You are a party to the social contract just by existing within society. But don’t worry, it’s mostly a good thing. It means that people can’t just hurt you and kill you and take your stuff without there being legal actions taken against them. It also means that you don’t have to worry about personally defending yourself from all possible threats as you would in a state of nature.
Ron Paul is a fine author to read, but Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau might shed more light on this issue.
krjohns makes a good case for ‘reasonable’ gun advocates as long as by ‘reasonable’ you mean ‘without restriction.’ I don’t think that is reasonable. I think it is reasonable to examine the particular situation (in this case, college campuses) and decide whether guns have a place there or not. In this case, I think logic overwhelmingly supports the ‘not’ position and that is why the debate keeps drifting to more abstract theories of gun rights and libertarian philosophy in general.
Being a “gun nut” I had to weigh in on this.
You do make a point about drunken frat boys.
They have over the years done some incredibly stupid things.
Many of them actually committing crimes (under age consumption of alcoholic beverages comes to mind) in the process.
In most states, the age is 21 to get a concealed carry permit.
That would (if I remember my youth) put it to seniors and a few juniors.
Open carry being a completely different issue…
The point of preventing just a murder (only 10 per year was mentioned above) is only one aspect of the use of a concealed weapon.
There is another statistic that I find more much more likely for use.
That would be incidents of rape and robbery.
As the father of daughters, these statistics are much more sobering.
My middle daughter (who knows her was around a .357 as David can personally attest to) was an RA for a year and she relayed some rape statistics to me that I found frightening. I don’t have them at memory, but they were WAY more than what I expected.
Being males, you don’t face the same kind of issues – not that many guys get raped.
Also I believe David could confirm that his fiance’s room mate was attacked and robbed at the college she attends.
That is also a situation where a concealed weapon would have brought it to a screeching halt.
Murder isn’t the only issue here.
I ask you to consider the female side of self defense.
A “Lady Smith” in a handbag sure would make me feel that my daughters would be safer in the dark walking to those night classes across a dimly lit campus.
Also remember that you don’t have to shoot someone to prevent the crime from happening. Just knowing that the person you are planning on attacking *might* be carrying is a deterrent in and of itself.
I don’t have the stats at hand, but have in the past read multiple studies on the drop in the general crime rate whenever a state either goes to “free carry” or to a “must issue” status for permits.
So don’t just look at murders as the only crime statistic worthy of inclusion here.
good point geezer
David M. Manes
actually, the government takes my money and alows me priveleges all the time
but maybe you could start a thread about volutary society somewhere else.
literally, i never signed a social contract, but i know what you mean.
(and i don’t think we are ever removed from nature)
ron paul is a good read, reclaim the old right!
locke is generally of the old liberal mindset, he’s decent
you can read Hobbes and Rousseau if you want to get a better idea of their social contract, the “General Will”. basically totalitarian democracy. but that’s not my cup of tea.
i am more into modern day guys like mises and friends. rothbard, rockwell, hoppe, block, etc
David, I’m not talking about abolishing restrictions. I’m talking about those with a CC permit who are students being allowed to carry their guns where those with CC permits who are not students are allowed to carry them. I’m all for restrictions on who can and cannot carry guns. I think that most states have set up a good set of restrictions on that in who can and cannot have a CC permit. I also don’t think the issue is much of a problem that needs to be prevented, but the arguments that are being advanced by the anti-gun side of this debate are not rational but emotional. You guys are debaters, stop feeling and start thinking.
“It seems to me that the arguments for allowing guns on campus would be convincing, if it were a problem. However, I am still unconvined that it is.”
-You’re right, there isn’t a problem, until a shooter walks into your classroom, and suddenly your mind changes. Better prepared that something will happen than hopeful something won’t.
“Educational environments should not be pervaded by a multitude of gun carriers.”
-In the 40 states that are right to carry states in this country, the average number of people with a CC permit is around 1 in 100. This means that every time you go to the mall, the movie, the bank, etc., it is likely you are encountering people with guns. However, you wouldn’t know it, because it is concealed carry. You can’t pull the gun out, show it to anyone, or brandish it in any way. Since I doubt you feel unsafe going to the mall or movies and people have guns there, why is it pertinent to expect the educational environment to be affected by guns on campus.
“Or is it reasonable to suspect that people, in the heat of the moment, could turn to using a deadly weapon, as opposed to their fist? I say, yes”
-As krjohns points out, CC weapon holders are 5 times less likely to commit violent crime than non CC permit holders. Your conclusion that in the heat of the moment an argument will turn into a shootout doesn’t seem to square with the facts. CC permit holders understand the responsibility they are undertaking by carrying a weapon – hence all the requirements they had to submit to in order to get the permit. In my case I had to talk to the chief of police for a half hour about why I wanted a permit. All people are asking for is the chance to defend themselves. Is that such a bad thing?
thegeezer – I do not find your vague references to studies you once read to be very convincing. Perhaps there are such studies; however, if you don’t cite them here then it is difficult for the rest of us to understand what you are referring to and it is impossible for us to critique those studies. Feel free to use the internet – if there are conclusive studies, I’m sure they are on here somewhere – and drop us a link so we can be on the same page.
Jesse – I don’t know what country you are living in, but in this one the government doesn’t “take your money and allow you privileges.” Okay, the first part is true. The government does take your money; but you begin with all your rights. You aren’t born into bondage here and you don’t have to fight and claw for every right to be dolled out by the all-powerful government.
krjohns – I’m unsure of what you are classifying as emotion. That doesn’t really help the debate, anyway, even if it were true. Instead of restating all of the rational arguments that have been made in favor of keeping college campuses gun-free, I will refer you to the rest of this thread of comments. I can’t find a single example of an appeal to emotion or pity or some sort of individual scenario portrayed to inspire certain emotions of fear or pity. Oh wait, I do see those… but it is coming from the people on this thread who want to “give them a fighting chance” and let “lady smith” protect our daughters.
I am interested in looking into the new idea of rape in this argument. That could be interesting but I have no time right now. More to come later…
I legally conceal and carry. I own a few handguns. I believe the 2nd amendment affords me that right.
Even that being the case, I would never think of carrying while on any campus. I like the analogy of driving a car. My stubborn, half-blind, memory-impaired grampa still owns his legal right to drive, but should he? I shutter at the thought.
Should we allow campus loads of gun-toting individuals to the theme of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly? The more armed, the safer? Doubtful.
Perhaps one step would be campus security employing more trained, armed officers and not wholly comprised of key-wielding students? It might lessen or even deter students from taking arms against fellow students, but police officials will tell you they are a reactionary force. You are on your own when the chips are down, and you are wholly responsible for everything you do. Every action you take, every decision you make. EVERYTHING!
Education not Reaction.
I have to include this link. Move it or remove it if needed:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=V3gp7B8WC4Q
Charlie, your argument is self defeating. “The more armed, the safer? Doubtful” — then why do you have a CCW permit if that is your position? Using your argument, you’d be better of not carrying anywhere.
I can’t imagine that your arguing that you should be able to defend yourself elsewhere, but people should not be able to defend themselves on campus. Are you?
David, your slippery slope argument is an appeal to emotion and a logical fallacy. That is the only harm you show would result from allowing those with CC permits to exercise their rights. There is no rational reason to not allow those who have a CC permit to carry their gun in the bank, mall and theater to also carry in the classroom. The idiots who get drunk and get in fistfights likely have some blight on their on their criminal record that would prevent them from getting a CC permit. Plus the example of Colorado, where CC is allowed on campuses and traffic disputes have not escalated into gunfights has been completely ignored. As those of you who know me know, I am not the most pro-gun person in the world. In fact, quite the opposite. I can just see no logical, rational, factual reason to prevent those who are licensed to carry a weapon in general from carrying that weapon on a college campus.
“there isn’t a problem, until a shooter walks into your classroom” – that is the definition of an emotional argument. It isn’t a problem unless you happen to be the 1 out of 2 million people who are killed on college campuses every year. But if you are egocentric enough to think that odds like that make something likely to happen to you, then by all means, go play the slots at Vegas.
Jstove – As far as CC permit holders being 5 times less likely to commit violent crime than non CC permit holders, I would still like to see some evidence of that (Come on, people, it’s the internet! Give us a link!). But even if it is true, when they do commit a violent crime, it is 100% more likely to involve a concealed firearm and I would assume it is significantly more likely to be more violent than the non CC permit holders (which include gang members and other factors that drive up that demographic’s statistics).
krjohns – I still don’t see the emotion there. Granted, you disagree with my rationalle for wanting to keep campuses gun-free. But you can’t seriously disregard all the arguments that have been made here as purely emotional. The most logical, rational analysis that has happened so far is my pointing out that fewer than 10 college students are murdered on campus every year. Most of those are related to drug deals going bad, so those individuals probably have weapons already (but they aren’t making things better with their guns). With such a small problem as originally cited in this bogus campus newsletter, any possibility of unintended consequences can very easily outweigh whatever potential benefit there is. I think you just like to disagree wtih everything, Kyle. Ha…
I have a carry/conceal permit because I am afforded that right. I carry/conceal when I please for my own personal protection. My point was that students should be afforded a safe environment for education. Will more armed students provide that safe environment? Mere speculation, but doubtful is my thought on the matter nonetheless.
There are plenty of ways students can defend themselves without resorting to carry/conceal. Students can legally carry/conceal all day long. I’m not saying, deny their arguable right. I just don’t believe it would create the proper atmosphere for a stress-free learning environment. Students are stressed enough.
Presently, in the state of Minnesota, you can carry/conceal even when there are signs posted at entrances, “No firearms allowed inside;” and they are everywhere. If you fail to carry/conceal properly and are asked to leave, you must immediately vacate the premises. Before failing a class, how many times will a student be asked to leave said class because he’s packing heat?
Charlie, you miss the point of concealed carry. As I’ve reiterated previously, the likelihood that you will positively know that something is carrying is very very small because, after all, it is CONCEALED carry. Just the way people aren’t stressed walking through malls and going to the movies, I doubt anything would change in a classroom. Further, it doesn’t seem to be affecting Colorado State University or any public university in Utah which are required to allow CC on campus. They’ve had these rules for a combined 60 semesters, and there has yet to be 1 incident of gun violence, theft of a weapon, or any other weapon related incident.
David, the likelihood that your house will burn down is probably extremely small as well. However, I bet you have smoke detectors and insurance. The probability of an incident may be very low, but that doesn’t mean you don’t prepare for it. It is in fact very logical to prepare for potentially tragic events. While I don’t have time to find the actual stats online right now, here is where the data is pulled from:
“Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,” John Lott and David Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies (v.26, no.1, pages 1-68, January 1997); “An Analysis of the Arrest Rate of Texas Concealed Handgun License Holders as Compared to the Arrest Rate of the Entire Texas Population,” William E. Sturdevant, September 1, 2000; Florida Department of Justice statistics, 1998; Florida Department of State, “Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report,” 1998; Texas Department of Public Safety and the U.S. Census Bureau, reported in San Antonio Express-News, September 2000; Texas Department of Corrections data, 1996-2000
JStove – If we are going to use individual schools to pretend like they support our arguments, then take this. The school that the authors attend, Harding University, is located in Arkansas. Arkansas has prohibited CCW on college campuses for years (since at least 1995, but maybe before) and there has never been a single gun murder on this campus.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, though. Remember that fewer than 10 gun murders occur on campuses every year? That means the list of campuses that haven’t had gun murders in a 20 years could go on for miles, whether they allow CCWs or not.
The house burning down analogy is great. And I agree that insurance is a good thing, even if the burning down is unlikely. But insurance doesn’t have unintended consequences. My insurance doesn’t represent any sort of threat to the rest of society whatsoever. If insurance did threaten others, and if it were a danger to society, then I think I would be arguing against limiting it in certain contexts.
krjohns – If you see no reason to prohibit CCWs on college campuses, then do you see any place where they should be limited? Airplanes? Police stations? Elementary schools? I’m just wondering…
Everyone seen this?
http://www.gunmap.org/
Yeah David, this is the era of the internet, but in reality, most of my reading involves manual manipulation of dead trees. Part of being a Geezer, I guess.
Kind of hard to supply a link for a hardcopy.
Also, not being a master debater (and with a brain already over crowded with too much stuff), I don’t carry around exact numbers and the substantiating reference sites in my head.
What I DO remember is the general statements and trends.
But having been challenged on the subject (and being off work today) I figured I would give you a few links.
Having been an NRA member (gasp!) each month I would read the statistics presented from various studies around the country and around the globe in my American Hunter or American Rifleman magazine.
Here is a link to one short summary on the NRA/ILA page containing the documented sources for the article.
More Guns, Less Crime
And another…
FABLE VII
It was questioned that the statement about carry permit folks being 5 times less likely to commit violence was incorrect (or not substantiated).
Well you were right – A statistic shows only 0.01% of nearly 1.2 million permits issued by Florida have been revoked because of firearm crimes by permit holders. That’s 1 one hundredth of 1 percent…
If my math is right, that’s 120 out of 1.2 million.
Sounds like pretty good numbers to me.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=189> Citizens with carry permits more law abiding
I find that the NRA/ILA is a wonderful source for the actual “fact vs feeling” issues when it comes to firearms.
Take some time to browse around and become a bit more educated on the subject.
And one last link as to what happens when you restrict possession of firearms. Crime goes up. So I believe that shows it works on both sides of the coin…
http://www.nraila.org//Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=30>What happens when you restrict firearms
Hmmm… Looks like I need to take an html class…
(or at least a cut-n-paste class)
Let’s try this link again…
FABLE%20VII:
Regardless of what every thinks, the bottom line is that college campuses are safe. There is no drastic changes that need to be implemented. The odds that “a shooter walks into your classroom” is a probability so minuscule that any measures taken because of this probability are illogical. The probability that you will be shot dead on a college campus (in a given year) is .0000005 % (that’s 1 in 2 million). Your more likely to be struck by lightening; your chances of being struck by lightening (in a given year) is 1/70000 (or .000001%). You are almost 3 times more likely to be struck by lightening, than you are to be shot on a college compus, in a given year. You can quibble over the statistically methods, but you have to draw the line somewhere. There is no evidence that suggests are campuses are unsafe. The sensationalizing of campus shootings by media outlets and talk show syndicates blow the issue beyond rationale proportions and lead people to believe that exigent measure are needed to ensure the safety of the student body.
Are campuses safe? Unequivocally, yes. To take this situation to the macro-level analysis, suggesting that society, as a whole, is safer with firearms (although I would disagree) is a topic for another debate.
stlll a good debate.
it’s worth knowing what each “side” thinks about the issues.
maybe you should start another thread.
“society, as a whole, is safer with firearms”
this has some potential as a thread.
SC Denney
am i to assume you support an international gun ban treaty?
Again you guys seem to think only shooting is a campus crime.
These stats from the government seem to disprove that.
Dept of Ed Campus Crime stats
I looked at the individual crime stats reported for Harding
Individual Campus Crime stats and yes, S.C. you seem to be living at a nice quiet and well behaved campus. Almost zero violent crime.
Just don’t take that as the norm, as you can see by the national statistics above.
Check out the Aggravated Assault and Forcible Sex Offenses numbers and compare them to the stats on murder.
Suddenly you get a different picture of the campus world outside Searcy.
Get a grip S.C. (preferably a nice strong two handed grip around a .357 magnum :-) )
You might even be inspired to join this organization: Students for Concealed Carry on Campus
theGeezer – Okay, we can talk about other crimes besides murder if you like; perhaps that’s where the debate really clashes since there is really no room to argue with murder prevention as justification.
Aggravated assault: about 1 in 6,500 college students will be aggravatedly assaulted in a given year. My guess is that most of those people had it coming in some way, and I doubt that they were just minding their own business when a random stranger brutally attacked them. Even then, aggravated assault is a relatively minor crime, and often does not even result in injury. What if we did inject concealed weapons into the scenario? My guess is that many of the statistics would move from the “aggravated assault” category to the “murder/non-negligent manslaughter” category.
Forcible sexual offences: about 1 in 9,000 college students will be victims of forcible sexual offences in a given year. This is a much more serious issue, but even less frequent than aggravated assault. I know that many more statistics probably go unreported because the victims don’t tell, but also a large number of the forcible sexual offences are typically date rape or something like that. Again, most of these are not victims being ambushed by a random attacker hiding in the bushes (although that happens sometimes). It’s hard to imagine a freshman girl taking her 9mm into the backseat of the car when she goes parking with her boyfriend just in case he doesn’t get the idea that “no means no” after things start to get hot.
We are all on the same side on this point: we all want to do as much as we can to make our colleges and our college students as safe as possible. I think that increasing education, adding lighting to dark places, and increasing public safety presence are much better ways of making people safe than increasing the number of random students on campus who are packing heat. Many schools offer free safety escorts around campus after dark and pretty much all of them have the little emergency kiosks placed around the campus. These are great, cost-effective, rational ways of addressing security concerns, and we should continue to develop more policies like that.
The Department of Education link was a good one, and those numbers are very helpful. The NRA site is typical of any advocacy group; they are clearly not reporting anything close to a well-rounded picture of the situation, only the statistics that support their presuppositions. Government and educational sources are probably going to be much more helpful.
Furthermore, the NRA site doesn’t seem to have any specific statistics related to campus crime, which is the topic at hand, isn’t it?
“My guess is that most of those people had it coming…”
Hmmm…
Who is dropping into feeling and wild speculation now…
That is almost the exact phrase that guys used to use when I was in school to justify sexual assault or rape.
Oh well, on to the hyperbole…
So how close to death does someone have to get beaten before it counts?
Aggravated assault covers everything from a punch in the face to being beaten to within an inch of your life. They didn’t have a category for “felonious assault”. That would have given a much better feel for severity of the majority of cases.
I believe you think most of them are little scuffles. I on the other hand believe those type incidents are not included in the stats and only the more severe cases where criminal charges were merited are included.
Again, I think the act of knowing the other person you are going to rough up could be packing would drop these statistics dramatically.
And I agree that we all want people to be safe on campus. But those little kiosks are really good at saying “Hey everyone, come see the person who just got assaulted”. They don’t prevent, they summon help afterward. People who commit crimes are in business – the business of crime. They gravitate to areas that have a good payoff with low risk of being caught or injured. What is lower risk than a gun-free campus?
If you know that you have a zero chance of being dusted for your actions, you are more able to escalate a situation, since your victim can’t respond with deadly force.
I don’t think the college environment would react in a situation much different than that of the community at large when concealed carry is permitted. Even if no one actually carries, the possibility is all it takes to cut the crime stats.
“What is lower risk than a gun-free campus?” I don’t know about risk to potential criminals, but let’s talk about risk to the student population – it is still extremely small. I don’t see any need to speculate when we have the facts there. You simply cannot make the claim that the lack of guns on campuses makes students hypothetically more vulnerable to crime when that is not borne out in reality.
But philosophically, I am wondering if you think there are justified limitations on where a person should be permitted to carry a concealed weapon? Any place at all? And if so, then why?
Wouldn’t a non-concealed weapon be much more of a deterrent than a concealed weapon?
A guy with a handgun on his belt is less likely to be messed with, I’ll give you that much. But someone with a hidden weapon? Come on now, you just want to shoot somebody.
Actually yes, I do believe in some limitations, but that is not the discussion we are having here.
I got whacked above for not talking strictly about the college campus and trying to generalize the subject so I won’t veer off.
“You simply cannot make the claim that the lack of guns on campuses makes students hypothetically more vulnerable to crime when that is not borne out in reality.” Are you actually serious? Let’s torture the analogy a bit.
Does standing on thin ice and then jumping up and down mean I am not in danger just because I haven’t fallen through yet?
Does lighting a match to look for a potential gas leak mean you are safe just because you never blew up the house before?
Does a herd of sheep remain just as safe in the pasture when wolves are in the area and no one is watching them as when they are while being actively guarded by a shepherd with a gun?
Common sense DOES count.
The underlying concept that you are not voicing is that the level of current crime on campus seems acceptable to you.
My belief is that it would drop further given concealed carry on campus.
I believe I have provided the analogous stats to back that up.
You believe differently.
People who have not grown up using guns since childhood do seem to have a certain mistrust or even fear of them or of people who carry them. (No stats – just a gut feel from personal experience)
But knowing you come from the left side of the aisle, I suspected this is where we would end up when I first chimed in.
But that’s what makes the see-saw work…
And I sincerely from the bottom of my heart (no joking or sarcasm) hope you are personally never in a situation where you really wish you had a weapon but didn’t. Otherwise it would make my daughter (and us) very sad indeed.
It isn’t common sense if it isn’t happening and has never happened. Those are some pretty tortured analogies you have there. And none of them really seem to fit reality, either. We aren’t talking about a match that has just been lit, but a policy that has been replicated in states all across the country for decades with no measurable negative effects. College campuses are much safer and more crime-free than the rest of society, even though the rest of society has people walking around who “could be packing.”
The one analogy that is close is the sheep one. You are right in implying that we do need armed shepherds, or as I like to call them, police officers. The sheep don’t all need to be hiding guns because a good security force and other preventative measures can (and in the situation at hand) has kept the wolves away with remarkable success.
As for me, I really didn’t grow up on the left side of the aisle, but I did grow up in a home with a lot of guns. I have been shooting 22s since I was about 12, when I also bought my own first gun (okay, it was a BB gun).
I have to say, the controversy that this post created completely surprised me. I love it of course, but I really thought that most people would just read it and nod and move on when they realized how incredibly safe college campuses are.
If you don’t look at the actual numbers, you might very well believe that colleges are just death traps because of sensationalized events like Virginia Tech. While those events are shocking and terrible, they are not typical and they still do not affect overall college safety.
But that is one of the coolest things about blogging – the random things that attract lots of attention and controversy.
well, as was mentioned, the atmosphere must be condusive to education. in what way can guns contribute or not in this scenario?
my issue is not with the statistics. it with how the debate is framed.
it is obvious that statistically campuses are not as dangerous in comparison to other numbers.
we can speak in collective terms and declare campuses are statistically safe.
but compared to what? the national rate? lightning?
we know that people want more security. or do they? what measures, if any, should be taken?
if we take each murder case individually what might we find?
do the families and friends of those victims want the right to carry? or more security? or are they fine with the way things are and accept the circumstance?
i think it’s obvious that there is much discussion about what can or should be done to ensure the safety of the individuals on campus. many will interpret shootings on campus as a reason to introduce more strict access to self-defense measures and possibly institute more collective security. many will do the opposite. maybe we should accept what has happened and move on since there is no percievable danger?
since i advocate more free markets and private property, it is clear to me that it is up to the campus and hence, the students, faculty and guests will act accordingly.
in-so-far as education is concerned, we have to ask and answer these questions so that people may make educated choices.
why are campuses safe? or are they comparitively safe? and to comparitive to what? you mention lightning. well that’s not murder. what about someones home? or place of business? how often is someone’s life ‘saved’ or taken and what role do guns have in those scenarios? the national rate is an avg. what about regional rates? inner city crime vs rural vs urban? each place has its own characteristics.
there is a reason college campuses may appear to be safe (i am not trying to say they aren’t). is it because of collective security? or is it because of the natural educational atmosphere?
i can see the purpose of the article you cite above. it is to quell fears. but just comparing school campus murders to lightning is not sufficient. it is a larger subject than that. i mean, let’s tak about terrorism and the chances of being killed in attack and compare that to the overwhelming response that is given to this threat. maybe we could better spend our time in this issue?
i just hope that if i am unarmed and encounter an incident that the sniper knows what’s happening in time to save my life. the guard will hopefully take down the assailant before runing out of bullets. that would look good statistically, given the situation was resolved with time to spare. (yes, i am being sarcastic)
Your Chance of Dying in a Terrorist Attack.
http://www.mattbarr.com/archives/2006/09/your_chance_of.html
Terrorism: let’s do the maths
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article616813.ece
You see, I think incidents like 9/11 may very well have been prevented by a $400 handgun. that’s ok though. bureaucracies ad nauseum ought to do the trick, next time.
That is an interesting question to ask why campuses are comparatively safe. I have a few ideas off the top of my head that I think explain it pretty well.
1) They are full of educated and soon-to-be-educated people, who statistically, are much less likely to commit any type of crime than the average person.
2) They try extremely hard to provide security features that do not exist in the rest of society, such as safety escorts, emergency kiosks, and video cameras.
3) They usually have a much higher police/security presence as a ratio of police to residents.
4) College campuses are less likely to be involved in gang-related conflict, which accounts for a lot of the murder statistics in general society. This is partly because of reason 1, and partly because of location; most schools are not located in urban gang territory.
As far as the terrorism argument is concerned, I would take the same approach in many ways. I think we have severely over-responded to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. We have bigger problems that could be more fully addressed if we allocated our resources proportional to the problems at hand (but then it sounds like I’m “weak on terrorism”). As it relates to this issue, I do not think that 9/11 presents enough justification for the average citizen to be able to carry a concealed firearm on a commercial plane. I am fine with US marshals doing it because those guys spend years training and they are professionals. I am not okay with the average NRA guy (or potential terrorist!) being able to carry a gun onto a plane. Again, it is a calculation of the likely risks and potential benefits.
ah, but it was the airline that was prohibited by federa law from allowing a pilot to have a gun.
if the airline is privately owned shouldn’t they have the right to allow there own pilots to have a weapon in the cockpit?
Okay, I could go for that because there is a unique threat to pilots of commercial planes and this narrowly-tailored exception to the general prohibition would probably be a good idea. What is the status of that now? I would definitely be in favor of pilots being able to have weapons.
(And don’t even think about taking this as a concession on the campus issue. There is not even close to the same amount of unique threat to the typical college student, nor could the threat be easily and directly addressed with such a narrowly-tailored allowance).
I’ll butt in and assert that 9/11 could have been prevented not by the presence or absence of guns or any other type of weapon, but only by information. Here’s what I mean:
Had the 9/11 hijackers had knives or similar weapons, and a few passengers or a pilot on each plane had guns, a likely scenario would have been that the passengers would not have shot-to-kill and resisted at first. Why? Shooting a gun on an airplane is generally a bad idea. There wasn’t a past history of hijackers flying planes into buildings–most hijackings happened to draw political attention to something or coerce a government into some sort of action like releasing prisoners. If a hijacker took a hostage, even someone with a gun wouldn’t have been in a position to stop them, and wouldn’t have chosen to without knowledge of the intended mission of their flight.
To me, the likely 9/11 scenario with pilot-with-gun would have gone like this. Hijackers knife people, come into the cockpit, and threaten the pilot. (or alternately, take a passenger hostage and threaten to kill them with a knife unless the pilot lets them fly. Either way, the pilot’s choice (pre-9/11) wouldn’t have been to shoot the hijacker, it would have been to comply and minimize loss of life.
Saying that 9/11 happened because pilots didn’t have guns is probably simply not true. The hijackings were possible b/c they had never happened before. All our added security doesn’t really matter that much, we (collectively as a society) had learned how to prevent such attacks by the end of the day on 9/11. The passengers on Flight 93 got this vital information through phone contact and prevented another such attack (albeit with disastrous consequences for themselves) while have the same (or less) weaponry than the hijackers. Today a pilot doesn’t even need to be armed with a gun to prevent a hijacking, the passengers would be motivated to do something. That said, I think arming pilots and/or air marshals makes sense because deterring hijackers is preferable to another Flight 93. But the original hijackings would have likely had the same outcomes, regardless of the weaponry involved.