 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
About the Author
Bob Zemsky describes himself as being old and round enough to be mistaken for a pooh-bah. He was a member of the Spellings Commission and, as an author and researcher, has focused on making colleges and universities mission-centered and market-smart. He has focused on what globalism might really mean for higher education, on what technology has not accomplished, and how to make learning important to the higher education market. Bob currently serves as professor and chair of The Learning Alliance at the University of Pennsylvania.
About Brainstorm
Mark Bauerlein
Marc Bousquet
Laurie Fendrich
Dan Greenberg
John L. Jackson Jr.
Stan Katz
Stephen Joel Trachtenberg
Brainstorm Alumni
Marty Nemko, guest bloggerBob Zemsky
Recent Posts
Lessons From the Cost-Quality Curve | Comment [2]
Quality -- Reform's Fourth Horseman | Comment [4]
Access to Success | Comment [2]
Is Access Still the Question? | Comment [3]
Affordability: Devil in the Details | Comment [2]
Featured Articles By the Author
Students Packing Guns Are Not the Answer
March 5 in The New York Times: Arizona closer to allowing students “with a concealed weapons permit — limited to those 21 and older — to carry their firearms at public colleges and universities.” Pushed by a state senator who half-jokingly described herself as a “right-wing wacko,” the bill is the latest attempt to use the tragedies at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois to have us all holster up a firearm.
The idea is not silly or idiotic as much as it is truly dangerous. Would you want to be the person who had to explain to parents that their child had just been shot because a classmate “thought he had a gun”? Think about the dynamics — and the politics — of what happens when guns are not just allowed but welcomed into the classroom.
Posted at 08:14:43 AM on March 11, 2008 | All postings by Bob ZemskyComments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: The Rise of Market Competition, Part II
Next: Guns vs. Markets as Topics of Interest
>>Would you want to be the person who had to explain to parents that their child had just been shot because a classmate “thought he had a gun”?<<
Couldn’t be any harder than telling the parents what actually did happen: their children were rendered helpless and then murdered because the universities do not honor the Second Amendment.
— The Sanity Inspector · Mar 11, 11:08 AM · #
What about the students who are self-medicating?
There are those who choose to stop using their prescribed medications (without medical supervision) and those who choose to use illicit drugs to solve their problems.
And how about the universally accepted medication: alcohol?
Can there be a more unstable population that we could arm?
— frank · Mar 11, 11:59 AM · #
Duh!
— econv · Mar 11, 01:17 PM · #
The idea that guns on campus will curb gun violence is illogical and backwards. Has it once occurred to promoters of this idea that America’s crime rate is in direct proportion to the number of guns in the populace? Increasing the prevalence of guns on campus will only increase the chances that some nut will turn to violence…and universities will have played a hand in allowing that to happen. We live in a country where too many sectors, government included, glorify and promote thoughtless agression. Let’s not make academe one of them.
— Eric · Mar 11, 02:51 PM · #
I agree with Bob. And with Michael Jackson from USC. This is a movement that must be stopped. It is not a path to safety for anyone. It is an invitation to disaster. There are too many guns out there already. Colleges and universtiies need to lead the way to removing the guns.
— Gerry · Mar 11, 05:50 PM · #
I think this is such an American solution—why did I not think of it!!! Arizona the brilliant. If we ALL pack concealed weapons, society will absolutely drown in security! How obvious! Milton Freedman’s ghost now dances! The brilliance of it all—Montesque, Locke, Madison, Jefferson, Martin Luther King, and now Arizona—our tradition lives and indeed thrives!!!
— Richard Tabor Greene · Mar 12, 05:23 AM · #
I note that the commentary all seems to need to create a straw man and knock it down (i.e., assert the proposal is to arm all students, as opposed to merely permit those who are trained and who have passed background checks to have firearms), or proceed to make up “facts” (more guns carried by law-abiding citizens = more gun crimes) that have been demonstrably falsified in every state.
Holders of concealed carry permits are less likely to misuse their firearms criminally than are police officers—why aren’t the commentators wringing their hands over the dangers posed by having armed LEOs on campus? Oh, wait, that’s because they want those armed LEOs to intervene when a criminal takes it into his or her head to injure others! <Fe>
Literally any sociologist or criminologist will tell you that police are a reactive organization(i.e., it takes a lllloooonnnngggg time for them to respond to a crime that is occurring and that, by their existence, they generally do not prevent criminal acts). Nutcases are well aware of this, and are also well aware that campuses can fairly be characterized as “victim disarmament zones”, where their rampages can have the maximum effect. Contrary to the offensive and false stereotypes spouted here, laws preventing law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms for defense do not prevent crime. This has been known since the father of modern criminology, Cesar Beccaria (quoted by Thomas Jefferson in his journal) commented that “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
Fundamental truthes such as this haven’t chaned since the 1700’s. Really.
In my position (in house counsel at a major public university which, naturally bans all legal firearms on campus), I have dealt with a number of scary folks and situations over the years. It is concerning that baseless fears disarm me, while nothing can be done about the potential nutcases that have threatened me. Perhaps, should one of them succeed in harming me, one of the wonderfully benevolent folks who have posted here can explain to my husband and children (ages 5 and 7) why we are all better off.
— Susan · Mar 12, 08:25 AM · #
Please visit your campuses Saturday or Sunday and walk around the residences between midnight and 3am. On Monday, write about how comfortable you would be knowing that some of the students you observed could have been armed. There are acts of violence most weekends on most campuses that do not involve “nutcases.” How many more of these incidents would turn out to be lethal if a handgun were available back at the room?
— Dave H · Mar 12, 08:51 AM · #
Interesting that the assumption is that the “scary” folks you claim to observe would be the ones you believe would pass a background check and invested in training and who would then (a) decide to carry on campus and (b) decide to break the law and become a felon by carrying concealed while impaired. Not exactly the clearest or best supported supposition. Does the commenter actually know anyone with a permit to carry a concealed firearm, or is this more of the typical, ignorant smear from folks who “know better” (with no data)?
I’d also like to see it explained why exactly a 21+ year old (afaik, all concealed carry laws set this as the minimum age), sober, model student coming home from a church social would be safer being disarmed when going back to her/his dorm through the “scary” folks you describe.
— Susan · Mar 12, 09:14 AM · #
To people who want students to carry concealed weapons: I think we should first try this out by allowing airline passengers to carry concealed weapons. I suggest this because the classroom is my airplane and I don’t want students, with all of their human tendencies (short tempers, reactions to stress, etc.) to be armed with anything other than knowledge.
— Liz · Mar 12, 10:07 AM · #
Just asking you to visit the campus at a time the vast majority of faculty and staff never see it. Drop by on a few students you see as model citizens. You could come out more convinced of your position than ever, but try it. And for the record, you are correct that the only people I know who legally carry concealed weapons are in law enforcement so I could learn more. Check out your campus (and perhaps a few others) and see if there’s anything you might learn.
— Dave H · Mar 12, 10:24 AM · #
There is really not much more I can add to Susan’s EXCELLENT posts above than to say that the massive amount of ignorance and condescension displayed here by academics is truly disturbing. It is well established and really beyond argument by anyone who looks at the (voluminous) statistics that more armed citizens = LESS violent crime. The U.K. and Australia are case studies in the disastrous consequences of banning law-abiding citizens from carrying guns. See John Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime”. Gun-control laws are laws against self-defense. The last time I checked, murder was illegal in every jurisdiction. Hanging a “Defense-Free Zone” sign on our campuses is a crime in itself, and INVITES tragedies like VA Tech.
— Mark Koenig · Mar 12, 10:32 AM · #
Certain Arizona legislators seem to assume that a person who has successfully attained a concealed carry license is not a whack job, almost by definition. I’ve never seen any evidence that that is the case. Just out of curiosity, was there anything that would have prevented Tim McVeigh from getting a concealed carry permit? Nice virtuous young man, upstanding citizen, no mental illness…
— Dave · Mar 12, 01:18 PM · #
More seriously, it is really difficult to prevent crime without establishing a police state. And even then, look how difficult it is to control behavior in prisons, where we exercise just about as much control over behavior as is possible. Edmund Burke, of all people, recognized that people obey the law, not just because it’s the law or not because of rigorous inforcement, but because they agree with the justness of the law and see something in it of both social and personal benefit. The threat of enforcement or punishment is a small factor in determining behavior. This is why laws pertaining to hot button issues like abortion or immigration or marijuana are likely to be ignored, violated, or protested through civil disobedience. Large numbers of people simply do not agree with the justness of such laws. People who are excluded from widely shared social values or who for various reasons put themselves outside have the potential to violate the law—perhaps any law—including the most broadly accepted laws relating to crimes against life and properety. It’s hard to prevent what you can’t predict.
— Dave · Mar 12, 01:39 PM · #
Dave – you’re simply buttressing my point. No – there probably isn’t any reason that Timothy McVeigh would have been denied a concealed-carry permit before the OKC bombing. What of it? He was going to commit that crime, as would any determined murderer, without regard for the law. Therefore it is morally abhorrent to deny other law-abiding citizens the means with which to defend themselves. How many lives might have been saved at VA Tech if even a few teachers/students/administrators were armed? It’s quite reasonable to suppose the death toll would have been much lower. As I stated earlier – this has been demonstrated in study after study. So-called ‘gun-free zones’ are killing zones. The level of violent crime per-capita, much to the consternation of elite anti-gun activists, was drastically lower
during the era of the so-called “Wild West” than what we see today in our modern society. Back then, nearly everyone was armed. Why is this so hard for some to understand?
— Mark Koenig · Mar 12, 06:16 PM · #
Mark,
Let’s say everything you say is true.
Will you also agree to this:
1) Accidental shootings on campus will increase
2) There will be more fear among most faculty and all workers on campus because of the perceived threat of having armed students
3) Universities in Arizona may lose faculty as they will not consider them in their job search
4) Outright intimidation of faculty will increase. For example, a student who “needs a grade” (or whatever they think they need) will somehow introduce the fact he/she may be carrying into their interaction with the faculty, in the hopes to influence the facutly decision. If you don’t think this will ever happen, you haven’t ever talked with how often faculty (and staff) have to deal with hostile and threatening students – and no, most threats aren’t the obvious “I’m going to kill you” statements, most students are smarter, and subtler, than that.
also, how are they supposed to know who is legally carrying and who isn’t?
Again, assuming your VT assessment is right, that the story may have been different if there were armed students or faculty, it can also work the other way. At my university (University of Arizona), there was a student who killed 3 faculty and then himself. 2 of the killings occurred in a medium size classroom (60 seats). This was a cohort group, were all the students knew everyone else. If there had been another student carrying, there would have been a decent chance the shooter (who was trainer, ex-military) would have know that, and would have shot them first. Even if he hadn’t, and another student pulled out a gun, in a highly stressful situation and in close quarters, there is no telling what would have happened and how many other students would have been hit/killed in the crossfire.
So, my position on this is:
School shootings rarely happen. The increase in the number of things I pointed out above negate (in my opinion) any of the possible benefits of having armed students.
Why don’t they allow people to carry weapons in a court house? (it’s not the same, I know, but my point is that certain situations with certain groups of people may make it necessary to “give up your gun” for the OVERALL safety of everyone.
Crazy people will do violence anywhere they choose. We should do as many preventive measures as we can (that’s only smart), but there is a tipping point for everything, where the pros are outweighed by the cons.
— Alan · Mar 13, 11:04 AM · #
Alan – I reject your premises categorically – therefore no – I will not agree with your arguments. Those with concealed-carry permits who are properly carrying CONCEALED will not be immediately identifiable. Accidental shootings on campus will increase? How many accidental shootings by law-abiding permit owners have occurred in the same time frame in which Columbine, and all subsequent school-related murders have occurred? Some universities may lose faculty? So sad for them – in any free market system, consumers will choose to attend school where they feel they are getting the best education, the best security, the most freedom, etc. If the faculty and/or administration of a university chooses an anti-freedom, leave our security in others’ hands policy – they deserve to lose business. If potential or existing faculty members are so anti-rational in their thinking that they would rather work in a “gun-free zone” that is their (foolish) choice. As for intimidation of faculty – I fail to see how allowing legal permit holders to carry on campus changes the equation in any way other than a positive one. Could a student not threaten a faculty member with a knife, a rope, choking wire, or ballpoint pen, for that matter just as easily? All are readily available killing tools. Shall we ban scissors from campus as well? Life involves risks, and evil people exist and will do evil things. Reality demands that we accept this and do our best to protect ourselves.
Your hypothetical situation in which more students are killed because other students are allowed to carry with permits makes no sense. It assumes: 1) that the shooter would be able to identify all other armed adversaries and take them out first, or 2) That the situation would escalate into a free-for-all where many innocent bystanders are killed. This is hysteria – theoretically, sarin gas COULD be smuggled onto campus and deployed in a classroom by criminals who took the time to secretly don hazmat suits just before the attack. Anyone can dream up these scenarios, and screenwriters regularly do so. To say that the risk of these sorts of wild fantasies actually occurring outweighs the right of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against aggressors is obscene.
— Mark Koenig · Mar 13, 10:42 PM · #
Like Susan, I work with disgruntled students. I happen to disagree with her perspective on concealed weapons, but that’s not why I am posting. I am posting because we can go back and forth all day talking about guns and rules and explaining things to families, but I’ll bet Susan and I agree on one issue that needs more consideration regardless of how the gun debate is resolved: our students need better access to better quality mental health care. It won’t prevent all violent crimes either, but it might prevent a few (some not involving guns at all) while simultaneously improving the lives of many students which will improve retention efforts and ultimately society. Let’s have the debate about the risks and benefits of the cocktails of antidepressants, anti-anxiety, etc. drugs our students are increasingly consuming. Let’s find treatments that can be used as alternatives or even as co-treatments to help these students live a better quality of life. My fear is that the gun debate is a distraction from a troubling issue (epidemic?) which is often linked to the kinds of crimes we’re discussing.
— Steve · Mar 21, 12:03 PM · #