# data[].attributes.body
Annotated Bibliography

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Guns don't belong in schools.

Currently, Utah is the only state that permits students to carry guns, but lawmakers in many states have been trying to follow suit.

This is shortsighted and dangerous.

Gun rights proponents say that college students have the same rights as other Americans to carry guns and that they need to do so to defend themselves. For justification, they point to the 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech and to the all-too-common rapes on campuses across the country.

But letting college students carry weapons won't prevent most crimes like these from happening, since the assailant would be in a position to surprise and overpower the victims.

And letting college students have firearms is much more likely to increase the death toll. Young adults in heated arguments tend to act rashly. College kids routinely drink to excess. And suicide is already at extraordinary proportions on many campuses.

If we throw guns into this mix, the results will be lethal.

Imagine the added stress of sitting in class with hundreds of strangers and knowing that they are allowed to have guns. Imagine the stress of being a professor and knowing that if things go badly, one of your students could visit your office with a gun.

Campuses are not places where students should carry guns to class and be prepared to shoot it out with each other.

Amazingly, bills allowing students to carry guns are in various parts of the legislative process in Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Tennessee.

Texas was recently on the verge of becoming the second state to allow students to carry guns until a last-ditch effort stopped the bill from becoming law.

Meanwhile, Arizona's Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, who is usually an advocate for gun rights, surprisingly vetoed a campus gun measure in Arizona. She lined up with leaders of major universities nationwide, who strongly oppose allowing students to have concealed weapons because it would only increase violence.

Insidiously, some legislators in other states are slipping the student gun issue into bills funding education. This smacks of opportunism, as Republicans are more obsessed with guns than they are with funding our public schools.

Their priorities are terribly askew.

Starita Smith is a doctoral student and instructor at the University of North Texas in Denton. She is also an award-winning journalist formerly with the Austin American-Statesman and The Dispatch in Columbus, Ohio. She can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Firearms shouldn't be allowed on campuses | The Progressive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Guns don't belong in schools. Currently, Utah is the only state that permits students to carry guns, but lawmakers in many states have been trying to follow suit. This is shortsighted and dangerous. Gun rights proponents say that college students have the same rights as other Americans to carry guns and that they need to do so to defend themselves.

# data[].attributes.body
The Debate of Guns on Campus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In April 2007, a gunman opened fire on Virginia Tech's campus, taking the lives of 32 people including five faculty members and twenty-seven students, injuring an additional seventeen innocent people before killing himself. Then, not even a year later a similar instance occurred in 2008, at Northern Illinois University, where five lives were lost, and an additional fifteen were injured before the gunman took his own life. These two terrifying tragedies served as a spark for a national debate on the right for those who have permits to carry concealed weapons on college campuses, which have predominantly remained gun free throughout history.

Organized groups of students and faculty have developed on both sides of this debate, and legislation to change laws has been introduced in many states across the country. Considering the number of public colleges (38) and universities (15) in the state of Michigan, this debate is of particular importance. The recent introduction of Senate Bill 747 to the Michigan Senate and House Bill 5474 highlights the urgency of input from the Michigan law enforcement community. Michigan officers who serve these campuses as well as those officers whose jurisdictions border and/or encompass these locations have the largest investments in the outcome of this legislation. As of today, the voices of Michigan law enforcement have not been a part of the formal discussion.

Guns on Campus: The Debate
On one side of the debate, there are those who believe that the ability to carry guns on campus provides certain benefits. One of the main arguments includes the deterrence of crimes that are committed on campus. The school shooting tragedies that have occurred in recent years are often used to build support for this stance. Supporters of guns on campuses say that these situations could have had less bloodshed if students and faculty were allowed to carry concealed weapons that they have permits to carry elsewhere. It is also argued by supported that other crimes could be deterred and students and faculty alike would be able to protect themselves from these dangers and feel safe.

The opposition believes that the legal carrying of a concealed weapon on a college campus can potentially create a very dangerous situation. Those who adhere to this belief are concerned that the presence of weapons on campus will detract from the learning environment of college campuses by adding an additional safety concern. There is also concern regarding the lack of training of the persons carrying the weapon. For example, those who have a permit to carry concealed weapons are only required to attend minimal training with their firearm; unlike the extensive training law enforcement officers undergo. Having weapons on college campuses in inexperienced hands, trying to deter crime or stop a gunman can add an element of additional danger and the potential of injury to bystanders. Of additional concern is the volatile climate inherent on college campuses; ie. population density, parties, high levels of stress and alcohol. The addition of guns to this unique environment could be deadly.

Research on Crime - College Campuses
Contrary to popular belief, college and university campuses are generally safe environments. According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics report (2005), college students are less likely to be the victims of violent crimes than their non-student counter parts. Additional research explains that university campuses experience a significantly lower crime rate than the communities that surround them (Stormer & Senarath 1992). Considering the research regarding crimes on campus, the image of a dangerous college campus is greatly inaccurate and skewed by the incredibly rare media frenzied tragedies that occasionally happen on college campuses. This does not mean that college campuses do not have crime; research has shown that the largest crime problems on campuses are theft and larceny (Fisher, Sloan, Cullen, & Lu 1997).

The research that exists on the prevalence of guns and other weapons on college campuses is minimal. This research estimates that about 7-11% of male students and 1.5-4% of female students have weapons on campus (Meilman & Cashin 1997; Miller, Hemmenway, & Wechsler 1999). The most important part of this finding, regarding the nature of the current study is the characteristics of those students who reported carrying a weapon. The students who reported having a weapon with them at college also reported having higher involvement in many other high-risk behaviors. These highrisk behaviors were mainly surrounding the consumption of alcohol including fights, and arrests for driving under the influence, as well as the use of illicit drugs (Meilman & Cashin 1997; Miller, Hemmenway, & Wechsler 1999). An important facet of information that is missing from the existing data on weapons possession is a breakdown of what those weapons are, and if the students carrying them are legally permitted to do so.

One of the difficulties with the existing literature is the absence of police officers opinions and concerns on this topic. There has been little to no research done on the opinions of police officers on the carrying of concealed weapons. With the increasing presence of police officers on college campuses their voices should be included in this debate. Campus police and the officers of the cities surrounding campuses are ultimately the people who will be confronted with these dangerous situations. Due to the impact that proposed legislation will have on the day to day activities of police officers, their opinions and insights are vital to the discussion and should inform any policy regarding carrying concealed weapons laws on college and university campuses.

Michigan Law
The current law in Michigan prohibits even a permitted person from carrying a concealed weapon on specific areas of college and university campuses. According to Michigan Complied Laws Chapter 28, Act 327 of 1927, section 28.425o. Amended, "Premises on which carrying a concealed weapon is prohibited include... (h) A dormitory or classroom of a community college, college, or university." The implementation of further ordinances regarding the areas of campuses where concealed weapons are allowed comes from the colleges or universities themselves. The current legislation, Senate Bill 747 introduced to the Michigan Senate in August of 2009 aims to change this. Senator Richardville (R), from the 17th district representing the counties of Monroe, Washtenaw, and Jackson, along with other senators, introduced the bill. This bill would amend the handgun licensure law to eliminate the prohibition of licensed individuals to carry their concealed weapons on college and university campuses, including classrooms and dormitories. The other legislation is House Bill 5474, which would prohibit local units of government from imposing certain restrictions on firearm ownership and possession. The House Bill has been amended so college and university campuses will no longer be able to ban concealed weapons from the entire campus, but will still be able to prohibit them in buildings if they choose to do so. So far these bills have only been introduced to the Senate and House, and has not been passed at any level. Despite this they have managed to create a discussion and debate on campuses across the state. It is because of the introduced bills' popularity and controversy, that the opinions of police officers that have the most insight into college campuses and their culture should be a vital part of the conversation.

Goals
The main goal of this research is to discover the opinion of campus police officers and those of surrounding communities on the issue of allowing permitted persons to carrying concealed weapons on a college campus. In addition to their opinions on the matter, uncovering the concerns and experiences that support their opinions is a secondary goal of this research. Their opinions, concerns, and experiences are of the utmost importance considering that they will be the people responsible for responding to the dangerous campus situations and crimes that could arise.

Methodology
Due to the exploratory nature of this research a mixed methods approach will be used to obtain the most detailed information possible. To conduct the quantitative portion of the research a short online survey will be distributed. Officers will be asked questions regarding their proximity to a college campus, and their views and concerns regarding the current and future policies regarding the carrying of concealed weapons on college campuses. This survey will be sent to all college campus police departments as well as other police/sheriffs departments surrounding campuses. To obtain the qualitative research to enhance the quantitative data, informal interviews will be conducted. These interviews will be onsite with officers from different regions of the state, and are expected to commence at the Police Officer's Association of Michigan annual meeting, May 26-28 in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Look for the short survey to appear in your e-mail or look for the link on the POAM website. Your research team, Donna Selman PhD, Anne Lee, and Kaitlyn Robison, appreciate your willingness to participate and look forward to your insights. If you have suggestions for future research please contact the POAM research team at dcritcrim@gmail.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In April 2007, a gunman opened fire on Virginia Tech's campus, taking the lives of 32 people including five faculty members and twenty-seven students, injuring an additional seventeen innocent people before killing himself. Then, not even a year later a similar instance occurred in 2008, at Northern Illinois University, where five lives were lost, and an additional fifteen were injured before the gunman took his own life.

# data[].attributes.body
Guns Do Not Make Sense on Campus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Desiree J. Hanford November 2008 - Educational Facilities Article Use Policy

Guns and schools are not usually associated with each other, but when they are, it's often under tragic circumstances. The shootings at Columbine High School in April 1999, Virginia Tech University in April 2007 and Northern Illinois University in February have one thing in common: armed students gunning down their unarmed classmates.

Now some are arguing that students or teachers should be allowed to have guns at school. While it once would have been unthinkable for firearms to be allowed in and around schools, that's no longer the case. The state of Utah now allows students, faculty and visitors to carry firearms on college campuses if they have permits to carry concealed weapons. Earlier this year, the Harrold Independent School District near Austin, Texas, began allowing employees to carry concealed firearms to school as long as the employees have permits. Texas doesn't allow firearms on school grounds except under certain conditions, but the district's trustees claimed that the school's rural location near U.S. 287 makes it vulnerable to possible incidents. The school district appears to be the only one in the country with the policy.

The argument for guns in schools is self-defense: Armed students or teachers have the opportunity, not only to defend themselves, but to stop an assailant before other people are killed or injured.

That argument is highly controversial. E. Floyd Phelps, the retired director of fire safety at Southern Methodist University and current chairman of the Fire and Life Safety Council for ASIS International, says the Harrold school district is suggesting that, because teachers deal with students regularly, they are as qualified as police officers to carry a firearm. But police officers are tested about the types of situations where a firearm may or may not be needed, whereas the average person carrying a gun, including a teacher, isn't, he says.

"No teacher would think that a police officer could come in and teach their class," Phelps says. "It's the same thing with security, guns, schools and hostile situations."

Concealed weapons on campus raise other difficult issues. Suppose a student with a concealed weapon goes to see a teacher about a poor grade. If the student is afraid that a poor grade could jeopardize a scholarship or eligibility for a sports team - or is worried about a parent's angry reaction - the discussion could become a confrontation. For a teacher, it's a daunting and potentially dangerous situation. "A teacher is in a heated discussion with a student and sees a gun - what now?" says Sean Ahrens, project manager of security, consulting and technology for Schirmer Engineering Corp.

Clearly, the issue is polarizing, and it raises difficult questions about security in schools.

Shooter Stopped

Supporters of measures to permit guns in schools point to shootings at a high school in Pearl, Miss., in 1997 to buttress their case. A student at Pearl High School killed his mother, then began shooting students. Once the gunshots began, a vice principal at the high school went out to his truck, got his handgun and confronted the shooter. The vice principal never fired a shot, but he stopped the rampage, forcing the student to the ground and keeping him there until authorities arrived. Two students died in the attack.

Local officials generally determine whether firearms can be carried in elementary and high schools. For colleges and universities, the decision about whether students or others can carry firearms on campus is generally made at the state level. Utah is the sole state where colleges and universities must allow students, faculty and visitors to carry concealed weapons on their campuses if they have permits. College students in Colorado can carry concealed weapons if they have permits at all but one school, the University of Colorado's Boulder campus.

Bills are pending as of this writing in Ohio and Michigan that would allow students or teachers at public and private colleges to carry guns in schools or bring guns on campus. Fifteen states rejected similar bills this year, according to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a bipartisan organization.

Despite the defeats, bills to allow college students to carry weapons on campus under certain circumstances have supporters. Students for Concealed Carry, a national organization of more than 30,000 students and college faculty members formed after the Virginia Tech shootings, views carrying a handgun as a "huge responsibility," but one that should be allowed on campus for people who have permits, says Mike Guzman, president of the organization.

Some supporters of concealed carry suggest that gun owners with concealed carry permits have a responsibility to keep their guns with them no matter where they are, even in elementary and high schools. Not doing so is the equivalent of having a fire extinguisher and storing it in the basement, rendering it useless in a situation where it's needed, says Dick Baker, founder of the Wisconsin Concealed Carry Association.

Different Schools, Different Risks

Law enforcement authorities and others say that introducing guns into schools carries many dangers.

The risks vary by the type of school. For example, suppose an armed parent who doesn't have custody of her or his children enters an elementary school and demands to see the children. If teachers or administrators are armed, there could be a confrontation in which children might be injured.

In a college setting, the risks are different. Students are told to lock their dormitory room doors whether they're in them or not, but the reality is that doors are often left unlocked. That could lead to a dangerous situation if students are allowed to have firearms in their rooms, says Dale Burke, University of Wisconsin assistant police chief.

"Students, by and large, think they're invincible and that crime can't or won't happen to them," he says. "Having your CD or iPod stolen is one thing. Having a gun stolen is a whole other ball game."

Another concern is that a student who has a firearm will let emotion override common sense in a heated situation.

"It's like a lot of other things in life in that if you get into an altercation or fight, we rely on the judgment of those involved not to escalate it more than they need to," says Ronald D. Stephens, executive director of the National School Safety Center.

Stalking is one example where emotions could lead to a poor decision being made, University of Wisconsin's Burke says. A student who is on either end of that situation may have a permit and a legally acquired firearm with them. That firearm is now an option "to someone who isn't thinking clearly or reacting properly," Burke says.

Proponents of concealed carry on campus dispute that assertion. An individual with a firearm who has received adequate training knows when to use and when not to use a gun, says Baker of the Wisconsin Concealed Carry Association.

"There have been bans on universities and schools because as a society we feel that guns shouldn't be allowed," Guzman says. But supporters of concealed carry on campus don't understand why society thinks a person with a concealed carry permit, who is deemed rational enough to be allowed to carry a gun in a supermarket or a stadium, will suddenly be "illogical and irrational" upon entering a school.

Another worry about guns being brought into schools is that the firearms will not be properly stored. Stephens cites an incident in California where a student entered a classroom with a gun in his gym bag and dropped the bag on the floor. The gun accidentally discharged, striking another student in the back. "Did he intend for this to happen? No," Stephens says. "But did he have it safely stored? No."

Uncertainty Poses Risk

Phelps says that another risk is someone who is planning an attack at a school will bring heavier weaponry if that person knows that some of the occupants of a school - teachers, administrators, staff - could be carrying concealed weapons. "They'll adjust their weaponry to handle that, expecting teachers to have weapons even if they don't," he says.

Uncertainty poses another risk, say opponents of measures to permit guns in schools. Suppose that the police will enter a hostile area filled with people. If some of them are legally carrying firearms, police may not be able to immediately spot who the "bad guy" is. That could lead to an innocent person being injured or killed.

Baker of the Wisconsin Concealed Carry Association dismisses those arguments. He says that the fact a potential shooter doesn't know who has a firearm acts as a deterrent. Baker also says that individuals who legally carry concealed weapons are told during training that when police arrive at a situation, they should immediately put down their firearms, put their hands up in the air and state that they have a permit.

"Police don't just instinctively want to shoot a person with a gun," Guzman says.

Proper Training is Key

The one thing that both sides agree on is that schools where anyone is allowed to carry a concealed weapon need to take every step possible to ensure that individuals have received rigorous training. That training should exceed a state's requirements and include scenarios of different situations as well as a psychological evaluation, says Schirmer's Ahrens. It should be clear when and how to draw, fire and clear a weapon, he says. There also should be close coordination between schools and law enforcement, ensuring that all parties are in agreement on all matters with regards to armed students or teachers, he says.

Even with extensive training, police are still the best responders and most able to handle a situation involving a firearm, Phelps says. Police train using paint gun bullets and practice situations so that, ideally, no one gets shot, he says.

If a teacher shoots a student, that teacher, the school and the district will have a problem on their hands, even if the teacher was allowed to carry a firearm, Phelps says. A judge may dismiss a criminal case, but a family would likely file a lawsuit that could last several years.

But Baker of the Wisconsin Concealed Carry Association says those who support concealed carry and who have proposed bills in Wisconsin have made it clear in those bills that a business or building owner wouldn't be liable under any circumstance if an incident occurred with a permit holder on their property.

The flip side is that if something did happen to a permit holder in a building where concealed carry isn't allowed and that permit holder can prove he or she wouldn't have been shot if allowed to draw their firearm, that individual could bring a lawsuit, Baker says.

Security Issues

It's important that schools begin thinking about policies to address the question of how guns on campus should be handled. Students at Southern Methodist University who were hunters and owned guns were required to give the firearms to the campus police during the school year, checking them out for hunting trips, Phelps says. The school periodically checked students' rooms for guns and other weapons, confiscating those that were found. In some cases, students could get the items back at the end of the semester. The school knew that students who hunted could have had the firearms legally and didn't want those firearms sitting in dorm rooms or other campus buildings.

Schools and campuses where firearms are allowed face a number of security issues. A faculty member whose gun gets into the hands of a gang member raises the possibility of that gun being in a school without anyone having the slightest idea where it is, a scenario that occasionally occurs with security guards, says Peter Blauvelt, president and CEO of the National Alliance for Safe Schools, a non-profit organization. The school then has to go into a lockdown.

Having armed security guards in schools may seem like a good way to deter potential shooters without permitting students or teachers to carry concealed weapons. But Blauvelt says that approach has its own risks. It's not uncommon to have high turnover in those positions, he says. What's more they also generally aren't well trained, paid or motivated, and they tend to be lonely positions, requiring someone with a special personality and solid training, he says.

University of Wisconsin police assume in every situation that no one on campus is armed because concealed-carry isn't allowed, Burke says. But if legislation was passed that allowed students, faculty and others to conceal firearms, the assumption would become just the opposite.

"I don't think it makes people any safer except for the person who has the gun," he says. "But it certainly makes everyone else feel less safe, and it increases the risk to everyone on campus."

Before a Crisis Occurs

There are many steps a school can take in advance of a crisis, says Stephens of the National School Safety Center. Schools where concealed carry permit holders are allowed to bring firearms in schools or on campus should have a comprehensive crisis management plan that everyone is aware of. The schools should also know which individuals have the skills or training for dealing with biological and chemical agents and who can administer CPR, he says.

It also should be clear which individuals will coordinate with maintenance and security staffs in an emergency and who will work with first responders, Stephens says. Also, some colleges are looking at having a limited number of individuals authorized to carry concealed weapons so there is a specialty team available when a crisis occurs.

"Based on NIU and Virginia Tech, we'll likely see a continued expansion of individuals authorized to carry weapons on campus, but it will be a select group and with stringent mental health reviews," Stephens says.

Phelps recommends that schools develop programs to identify and help troubled students, not simply ignore the matter and hope it goes away or that someone else deals with it. "You need to look at people and try to help them," he says.

Comments

Find us on Google+

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Baker of the Wisconsin Concealed Carry Association

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Does Concealed Carry Make Sense In Schools And On Campus? - Facilities Management Educational Facilities Feature

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Desiree J. Hanford November 2008 - Educational Facilities Article Use Policy Guns and schools are not usually associated with each other, but when they are, it's often under tragic circumstances. The shootings at Columbine High School in April 1999, Virginia Tech University in April 2007 and Northern Illinois University in February have one thing in common: armed students gunning down their unarmed classmates.

# data[].attributes.body
Even Gun owners agree, Guns should not be allowed on Campus.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Commentary

I am a licensed gun owner and have been ever since I was able to purchase a firearm legally. I also possess a pistol permit and have ever since I could apply for it legally. My pistol permit allows me to "carry concealed." That's right, I can legally carry a handgun, and you wouldn't even know it. In fact, I own several handguns, rifles, and shotguns. I hunt sometimes. I target-shoot sometimes. I am a law-abiding, responsible citizen. Oh, and I am also a school principal.

Once again our nation has been stunned by a school shooting, this time at Marysville-Pilchuck High School in Washington state last week. No one wants to compare mass shootings-the loss of any life is horrible, no matter what. The Sandy Hook Elementary School killings certainly took a bigger toll on me and likely most other people, however, because of the age of the victims. I was badly shaken by the news, and during the weekend that followed that 2012 tragedy, I found myself riveted to the televised reports of the devastation caused by one lunatic. I listened to President Obama that Saturday evening and agreed with him that, individually and as a nation, we have said (emptily) too many times that something needs to be done. As we approach the second anniversary of that horrible day, I continue to look forward to our taking significant action as a nation.

The National Rifle Association's eventual reaction to what happened at Sandy Hook, as expressed by its executive vice president and CEO, Wayne LaPierre, was not surprising: "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." In fact, Mr. LaPierre's response was pretty consistent with what it's been to every shooting-perhaps a little more forceful in this instance, if only because he had to counter and deflect the horrific reality of 6- and 7-year-old children being murdered.

I've never belonged to the NRA and never will. I disagree with its position on anything and everything related to "gun control" because the NRA opposes it. I believe there are reasonable steps that should be taken to limit access to guns, but that is not the point of this essay.

On the K-12 front, one of the more out-there prescriptions suggested was for school personnel to carry guns, thus ensuring that armed security forces would be present on every campus. The idea took hold with many, perhaps even originating with Mr. LaPierre when he called for a "national schools shield safety program." It seemed to be an easy fix to school shootings.

However, I believe that changing laws and regulations to allow educators to be armed in schools is flatly bad policy and a bad idea. I don't differentiate between arming principals, teachers, or other school personnel. It is a poor excuse for a response to unnecessary school tragedies that we witness all too often.

Using a gun to defend yourself-which thankfully, I've never done and hope I never will have to do-in any situation is not to be taken lightly. Most people would not have the nerve, rational thought, or skill to do it on the spot. Providing stop-gap "training" would not address the whole picture. You would be taking people who were trained to educate-many of whom had most likely never owned or even fired a gun-and transforming them into the appointed defenders of schools.

How sane is that? How much training do swat teams, police officers, or security guards undergo before they are ready to handle these dangerous encounters? How exactly can we ready educators in a shortened time frame? People who become public defenders know what they're getting themselves into. Educators didn't (and don't) sign up for that line of work.

This approach would require us to be placing guns in schools now-guns that could easily be used inappropriately. Don't for a minute think that a secured gun, stored in a school, would be inaccessible. For a gun to be available for defense, it needs to be accessible. That means it would be accessible to more than just the principal or teacher. This will become an even greater concern should more states pass gun laws that allow people with valid pistol permits to also carry them in schools.

Although in New York state, where I am a principal, it is illegal to bring a gun into a school, more than two dozen states have passed such laws, and seven of those states allow teachers and school staff members to carry guns, according to an NBC report from September. Earlier this month, a 6th grade teacher in Utah wounded herself at school when her handgun, which she was legally carrying, accidentally discharged. An isolated incident, perhaps. But what if a child had been nearby? If more states jump on the bandwagon, more guns will be in schools and accessible to more than just the legal user.

Yes, I am a licensed handgun owner, and, yes, I am comfortable with guns. I know how to shoot. I know how to handle guns safely. I have hunted and killed animals. It is true that there are many educators who are even more comfortable with guns than I am. And I would like to think that if put in a life-threatening situation, I and others like me would be able to act appropriately. But there is no guarantee. Until it happens to you, you can't really know.

I have even greater doubts about people who do not have my level of experience with guns. Is it easy to make an instantaneous decision whether a particular threat merits pulling a gun? Having an armed intruder is probably an obvious time to do so, but there are many other circumstances that are not so clear-cut-the angry, aggressive parent; the out-of-control 17-year-old student; the gang member who's guarding his turf. We don't pull guns in these instances now, but if given the authority to do so, would some people do just that?

I do not have enough faith in our citizenry-regardless of their comfort level with handling guns-to believe that everyone would have and/or use the proper judgment in the many uncomfortable and sometimes intimidating, even threatening interactions that can and do present themselves in the school yard or building. And, referring again to last week's school shooting in Marysville, Wash., the shooter reportedly was confronted by an unarmed teacher, who is being considered a hero for her actions.

Allowing educators to carry guns makes them the appointed defenders of our schools. But what if the principal (or teacher) doesn't act quickly enough? Or doesn't believe in pulling a gun? Or couldn't find the key to the locked drawer containing the gun? Or wasn't in the building when a threat presented itself? There now becomes a culpable nondefender, someone who didn't do her duty and now another target for finger-pointing, excuse-making, lawsuits, or worse.

Educators carrying guns? Not an answer to the policy questions before us. My guns stay home.

Vol. 34, Issue 10, Page 28
Back to Top

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Commentary I am a licensed gun owner and have been ever since I was able to purchase a firearm legally. I also possess a pistol permit and have ever since I could apply for it legally. My pistol permit allows me to "carry concealed."

# data[].attributes.body
Arguments against guns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Texas lawmakers are considering passing a new law that would allow college students and professors to carry concealed weapons on campus. Trace Gallagher has all of the details. For more from the Fox News Insider, check out http://www.foxnewsinsider.com.

# data[].attributes.body
People do not feel safe.

# data[].attributes.body
Law being passed to bring guns to College Campuses in Texas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
AUSTIN - College students across Texas could soon be carrying holstered handguns into dorms and classrooms.

Texas lawmakers last week passed a bill allowing for firearms to be carried on public university campuses. The bill came on the heels of another approved bill making it legal to openly carry a holstered gun in public in Texas. Both bills await the signature of Gov. Greg Abbott, who has said he supports expanding gun rights.

If signed, the "campus carry" bill will allow only concealed handguns on campuses by those 21 years or older and who hold a handgun license. The rule will go into effect Aug. 1, 2016.

The campus gun bill was passed despite written protests from University of Texas System Chancellor William McRaven, a former Navy admiral who directed the Special Forces attack on Osama bin Laden.

"Overall, horrible idea," said Jonathan Panzer, executive director of Texas Gun Sense, an Austin-based advocacy group which opposed the measure. "The presidents don't want it. The faculties doesn't want it. The students don't want it. It's incredibly dangerous to add firearms to an already volatile situation on campus."

Texas joins a growing number of states who have changed the rules to allow guns on campuses since the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, where a student shot and killed 32 people and wounded 17 before turning the gun on himself. Gun rights proponents claim armed students could stop such spree shooters in their tracks, while opponents say guns on campus are unnecessary and present a liability.

Texas would became the eighth state to allow concealed weapons on public post-secondary campuses, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, or NCSL. The others are: Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah, and Wisconsin.

In 2014, 14 states introduced bills to allow guns on campuses, said Suzanne Hultin, a policy specialist at NCSL. This year, that number climbed to 16 states. Most of those measures fail or are shelved, due mostly to opposition from university leaders, she said. But each year, new ones pop up.

"There's definitely a strong lobby to get guns on campus," Hultin said.

Similar proposals failed in Texas for years. But this year a compromise allowing university officials to determine "gun-free zones" on campus where weapons are not allowed helped pass the bill.

A University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll in February showed Texans are nearly split even on allowing concealed handguns on college campuses, with 47% supporting the idea and 45% opposing.

Besides making campuses safer, allowing faculty and students to carry weapons onto colleges and universities extends their already-allowed Second Amendment rights, said Mike Newbern a spokesman with Students for Concealed Carry, a Michigan-based non-profit group that advocates for gun rights on campuses.

The argument that guns in the hands of students will lead to more gun violence is baseless, he said. In Colorado, for example, crime around campuses that allow guns has actually gone down, Newbern said.

"This whole idea that law-abiding citizens in possession of firearms is going to result in some apocalyptic terror is just not true and law makers are starting to realize that," he said.

But allowing firearms into an arena that already sees alcohol and drug abuse, depression and cases of domestic violence could lead to increase gun violence, Panzer said.

Also, colleges and universities that allow guns on campus will now likely see a rise in their insurance premiums to cover potential liabilities, which could translate to higher tuition costs, he said.

"Guns on campus are just a bad idea," Panzer said.

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/1IqeS30

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
National Conference of State Legislatures

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Concealed weapons likely coming to Texas college campuses

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AUSTIN - College students across Texas could soon be carrying holstered handguns into dorms and classrooms. Texas lawmakers last week passed a bill allowing for firearms to be carried on public university campuses. The bill came on the heels of another approved bill making it legal to openly carry a holstered gun in public in Texas.

# data[].attributes.body
Massacres on College Campuses

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
by Robert Birnbaum

One side views guns as essential to personal freedom, while the other side insists they are instruments for mayhem and violence. ... Every gun control proposal is an occasion for pitched battles, with the stakes portrayed as nothing less than the future of life, liberty and justice.

(Winkler, 2011b)

Twenty years ago, any discussion about permitting guns on college campuses would have provoked as much laughter as shock. Yet by 2012, guns were allowed on 200 public campuses in six states. That number appears certain to increase; in 2011 alone, bills to permit guns on campus were introduced in 23 state legislatures. Although most of these bills failed, some were carried over to the following legislative term.

Their proponents tend to be persistent, and we can expect bills similar to these to be re-introduced in future years. Guns may be coming soon to a campus near you-perhaps to your own.
Two Perspectives
The question of whether guns should be permitted on college and university campuses in the United States reflects the tension between two competing perspectives. America has both a robust gun culture and an equally robust (if less well-known) gun-control culture.

The gun culture is as American as apple pie: There may be as many as 300 million civilian guns in the US, or about one for every person (Winkler, 2011a). The gun-control culture also has a long history here; one of America's iconic events, the 1881 gunfight at the OK corral, occurred when the Earps and Doc Holliday tried to enforce a Tombstone municipal ordinance banning guns in town.

The issue of guns on college campuses is presently a subject of vigorous debate, stimulated by newspaper and on-line headlines such as the following:

16 April 2007 - AT LEAST 33 KILLED IN VA. TECH MASSACRE. (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-2686709.html) 14 February 2008 - 5 SHOT DEAD, INCLUDING GUNMAN, AT NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/14/university.shooting/) 11 February 2009 - FOUR DEAD IN UNIV. OF ARIZONA SHOOTING. (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-527308.html)
12 February 2010 - PROFESSOR SAID TO BE CHARGED AFTER 3 ARE KILLED IN ALABAMA. (The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/us/13alabama.html?_r=0)

10 May 2011 - 3 DEAD IN SHOOTING AT SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY. (Los Angeles Times, http://www.latimes.com/news/ktla-san-jose-state-shooting-deaths,0,6943832.story)

Such headlines give the impression that the American college campus is an increasingly dangerous place in which neither students nor faculty are safe. In response, two competing policy narratives have developed. One is that campus violence could be prevented by increasing the number of armed individuals on campus (I will call this position MoreGuns); the other is that campus violence would be reduced by a total ban on weapons on campus (I will call this position BanGuns).

The MoreGuns and BanGuns policy camps paint pictures of starkly different futures, as reported by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities in 2008:

Gun-rights advocates argue that easing gun restrictions could enhance both individual and collective security on campus and may deter violence. In contrast, the vast majority of college administrators, law enforcement personnel and students maintain that allowing concealed weapons on campus will pose increased risks for students and faculty, will not deter future attacks and will lead to confusion during emergency situations.

The basic philosophical premise for MoreGuns is that self-defense is an inherent right that should not be compromised just because someone happens to be on a college campus. MoreGuns advocates argue that college students and faculty should be able to carry weapons for their own protection, particularly since history has shown that colleges can't protect them from assailants. They claim that criminals would be less likely to use guns or commit violent crimes if they had reason to believe that targeted citizens, or others around them, might also be armed and able to defend themselves. The alternative of establishing "gun-free" zones doesn't work, they say: stickers on campus saying "no guns allowed" just announce to criminals and psychopaths the absence of defensive weapons.

The two philosophical bases for BanGuns are academic freedom and academic autonomy. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, in making the academic-freedom argument, says that permitting students to have firearms will

likely breed fear and paranoia among fellow students since no one will know whether the other person can simply retrieve or pull a gun out if a dispute arises. Such fear and paranoia is antithetical to creating the kind of climate where free and open academic debate and learning thrive. (2007)

Academic-autonomy advocates believe that each institution should have the responsibility for establishing policies that promote both learning and campus security. Allowing students and faculty to carry guns, if contrary to the wishes of institutional trustees, could make campus security a matter determined by untrained individuals who have no legal responsibility for it.

Does either the MoreGuns or the BanGuns position improve public safety? Two major national studies have used similar data to examine the relationship between gun ownership and degree of criminal activity-and they reached diametrically opposed conclusions. One found that "allowing citizens without criminal records or histories of significant mental illness to carry concealed handguns deters violent crimes" (Lott & Mustard, 1997). The other concluded that "statistical evidence that these [concealed-carry] laws have reduced crime is limited, sporadic, and extraordinarily fragile," and it suggested that making it easier to get a firearms permit is associated with higher levels of crime (Ayres & Donohue III, 2003).
The Campus Scene
Deadly violence on college campuses is not a new phenomenon. A study jointly conducted by the Secret Service, the Office of Education, and the FBI (Drysdale, Modzeleski & Simons, 2010) analyzed 272 incidents of targeted violence on college campuses that occurred between 1900 and 2008. Guns were used in 54 percent of the reported cases, and almost 60 percent of fatal violent incidents were instigated against someone previously known to the assailant. The chances of being the random victim of a fatal attack by a stranger or unknown person on a college campus have been, and remain, exceptionally small.

The act of a single mentally disturbed student at Virginia Tech in 2007 was a watershed event in the guns-on-campus debate. A 2008 report by the Midwestern Higher Education Compact noted that "ubiquitous and relentless nationwide media coverage...exerts a powerful impact on the psyche and basic instincts of students, parents and policymakers, and the general public, leading to the understandable questioning of the relative safety of a specific campus or of educational facilities in general." It called for making campuses as safe as possible, while at the same time acknowledging that "no amount of money, technology, and human resources can guarantee members of a university community that they will never fall victim to crime."

What the press called the "Virginia Tech Massacre" changed the narrative of, and participants in, the national guns-on-campus debate. One of its consequences was to unleash a torrent of proposed state legislation that, if enacted, would permit more guns on campus in the belief that an armed community would serve as a deterrent to violent crime.
The Policy Arena
Any successful proposal to either permit or restrict the presence of guns on campus must be consistent with both the US Constitution and the constitutions and laws of the states. The controlling language that serves as the foundation for discussing guns on campus is in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (1791), which in its entirety reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Over time, these 27 words (and their three controversial commas) have been interpreted differently.

Until recently, a legal consensus had developed in the US that the amendment simply protected the ability of states to maintain armed militias. Then, in District of Columbia v Heller (2008), the Supreme Court held that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditional lawful purposes such as self-defense.

The Court went on to say that "like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever and for whatever purpose." It also wrote that prohibitions against gun ownership by felons, the mentally ill, aliens, minors, and others in specified categories were acceptable. In other words, gun-licensing laws and reasonable restrictions on possession that are uniformly applied are permissible, but total handgun bans or other requirements that make it impossible for citizens to use arms for self-protection violate the Second Amendment and therefore are unconstitutional.

The Court said that its opinion "should not be taken to cast doubt on...laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools or government buildings." But it did not define "sensitive places" or clarify the meaning of "schools and government buildings," leaving that task to the state and local agencies that must administer the law.

Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court held that Second Amendment rights were equally applicable, via the Fourteenth Amendment, to state and local laws. The two cases did not directly consider the issue of guns on college campuses, but they established the legal framework within which both past and future gun laws by the states, or policies by campus trustees, would now be judged.

Every state has a constitution that enumerates the rights of its citizens, and 43 of the 50 specifically allow individuals to own guns. In many states they can also carry them in permitted places, as long as the weapon is clearly visible.

Federal provisions apply to all public institutions, but differences among the constitutions, laws, and regulations of the 50 states have created a hodge-podge of policies that affect the legality of carrying guns on campus. Some states and institutions bar firearms altogether; others permit them anywhere on campus, anywhere on campus except in buildings or arenas, or in automobiles in parking lots but not elsewhere; and some states prohibit institutions from banning weapons on campus. Some state laws (particularly those that completely bar handguns from college campuses) may not at present be fully consistent with Heller, and we can expect that bringing these laws into compliance will be on the future agendas of many state legislatures and judiciaries.

Even more contentious than open carry, however, is whether and where citizens are entitled to carry concealed weapons. State laws usually stipulate that carrying a concealed weapon requires a permit, but obtaining one has become easier in many states.

Recent growth in the number of permissive concealed-carry laws has increased permit holders from 5 million in 2008 to 7 million in 2011, and data indicate that many more people carry concealed weapons without a permit (National Opinion Research Center, 2001). The reality is that almost anyone in the US who wants a gun can get one. Concealed carry with or without a permit is increasingly a part of US culture.

States that allow concealed carry may have regulations about where weapons are permitted-for example, on the street but not in courthouses or legislative offices. Many states prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons in schools, and some either have specific prohibitions against them on college campuses or delegate to the trustees of public institutions the right to determine what institutional policies shall be.

Although the data change as legislatures come and go, according to one recent analysis, "twenty-four states completely prohibit concealed weapons on college campuses, even for those who have a concealed handgun license" (Meloy, 2011, p. 12). Whether such state policies can continue and what public university trustees can do may not be known until individual cases have moved through the state court system.

As they do so, much may depend on whether current state laws are found to meet federal Constitutional muster, whether institutions of higher education have been designated as "sensitive" places, and whether public college facilities are considered to be "school or public buildings."
Campuses and the General Population: Comparative Data
Since the ostensible purpose of campus firearms policies is to improve campus safety, describing the actual incidence of crime on campus might help clarify the issues over which the MoreGuns/BanGuns camps are contending. Such data are available because the Student Right to Know and Campus Security Act of 1990 authorizes the Department of Education to collect and analyze incidents of crime on every US college campus.

This law, known as the Clery Act, requires each institution to annually report and disclose, among other things, the number of alleged campus incidents of criminal activity reported to the campus or local police agencies. This is the source of the numbers reported here, even though Clery Act data have been criticized because institutions may differ in their interpretations of the self-reporting requirements and may fail to report some offenses in order to protect their reputations. In addition, students may be reluctant to report crimes, and campus counseling centers may withhold information based on confidentiality concerns.

The data reported in this article are based on all reported on-campus incidents in US degree-granting, not-for-profit campuses. Three analyses are presented below. The first is the incidence of specific types of campus crime in 2010; the second, comparative rates of violent criminal behavior on campuses and in the general population; and the third, campus and general-population data related to the two violent crimes of murder and manslaughter.
Campus Crime in 2010
Annual Clery data provide a snapshot of crime on campus. The categories of crime and their prevalence on college campuses in 2010 are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Number and Percentage of Clery-Reported Crimes on College Campuses, 2010 Campus and US Population Violent-Crime Rates
Campus murder and manslaughter constitute only 0.05 percent of all reported campus crimes; 79.16 percent of campus crimes are non-violent in nature. Burglary (in the non-violent category) constitutes about two-thirds of all reported campus crime. Forcible sexual offenses (9.00 percent) and aggravated assault (7.18 percent) are the most frequently reported violent campus crimes.

Of the categories of crime included in Clery data, five (murder, manslaughter, forcible sexual offenses, robbery, aggravated assault) are considered violent; it is the summed total of these categories that are reported here. The FBI uses these same categories in its reports of criminal activity in the US, making it possible to compare campus violent-crime rates with rates in the general population.

Table: Table 2 Comparative Violent-Crime Rates, 1997-2010 Murder and Manslaughter
In order to make the comparison, both campus and general-population violent-crime rates in Table 2 are reported per 100,000 FTE students/citizens.

The data in Table 2 indicate that rates of violent campus crime have been only between 10.8 and 12.8 percent of the general-population rates in every year during the 14-year period shown. This is true even though a large proportion of college students are at the ages most prone to engage in violence, while a significant portion of the US population consists of groups, including the young and the elderly, that are the least likely to engage in violence.

Table: Table 3 Comparative Murder and Manslaughter Rates, 1997-2010
Even a casual look at the data in Table 2 reveals two trends that may surprise some observers. First, the violent-crime rate per 100,000 in the general population is not increasing but has been steadily decreasing. Second, the violent campus crime rate per 100,000 FTE students has been steadily declining at a rate similar to that seen in the general population (from 68.6 in 1997 to 47.3 in 2010).

The number on which the public is most likely to fixate is the rate of murder and manslaughter in colleges and universities compared to that rate in the nation as a whole. This number is also the most reliable, since murder and manslaughter are the crimes least likely to go unreported.
Prospects for the Future
The data in Table 3 show that from 1997 to 2010, the annual murder/manslaughter rate for the US ranged from 6.8 to 4.8 per 100,000 persons. During the same period, murder and homicide rates on college campuses ranged from a high of 0.37 per 100,000 FTE students (in 2007, the year of the Virginia Tech shootings) to a low of 0.06 per 100,000 FTE students. Aside from 2007, when the murder and manslaughter rate in colleges and universities was 6.6 percent of the rate in the general population, college and university rates ranged between 1.1 percent and 3.5 percent of the general-population rates.
Wicked Problems
So on the one hand, the campus is not an ivory tower free of criminal activity. On the other hand, even those concerned with campus crime acknowledge that "college campuses do not appear to be 'hot-spots' for predatory offenses, as portrayed by the media, that they are not 'armed camps' in which heinous crimes are a regular occurrence" (Fisher et al., 1998).
Motivated Reasoning
The reality is that America's colleges and universities are unusually safe places. The chance of being a homicide victim on campus in 2010 was about one in 875,000, approximately the same chance that the average US citizen faces of being struck by lightning.

This suggests that the guns-on-campus debate is about a manufactured rather than a real crisis. Both the MoreGuns and the BanGuns arguments appear to be ideological solutions in search of a problem.
Self-Validation
Although colleges and universities exhibit exceptionally low crime rates by general-population standards, the fight between MoreGuns and BanGuns is likely to continue unabated because guns on campus is a wicked problem, the arguments of both groups are based on motivated reasoning, both positions are self-validating, and the polar positions they advocate are oversimplified.
Oversimplification
Problems are called wicked when they are ill-defined, can't be solved permanently, and don't yield to traditional management or problem-solving practices. Instead they rely on political judgments to reach a temporary resolution. Guns on campus is a wicked problem that can never be satisfactorily resolved until the underlying ideologies are surfaced and reconciled.

MoreGuns and BanGuns groups are entrenched in their positions because each processes information to promote different goals. MoreGuns advocates view data and arguments through the lens of legal values; BanGuns proponents do the same through the lens of academic values.

Such motivated reasoning leads actors to seek out information that supports their position, to discount information that does not, and to increase the certainty with which they hold their views. The resultant policy recommendations are not based on empirical evidence; rather, evidence is selectively collected and interpreted by both sides to support their a priori commitments to a policy view.

Both the MoreGuns and BanGuns views are self-validating. The ideological arguments for both positions are reinforced by interpretations of events. If a student is killed by a gun, it can be argued that the shooting would not have happened if other people present had also had guns as easily as it can that it would not have taken place if the campus had banned guns. A low violent-crime rate can be used as evidence to support either position. In fact, all data (or lack of data) can be used to support a proponent's preconceived ideology.

Presenting only two positions in the MoreGuns/BanGuns debate oversimplifies, and therefore distorts, the available alternatives, thus lessening opportunities for agreement or compromise. But the nature of the problem itself can change upon closer inspection, and even obvious and stark alternatives can become multi-dimensional and therefore negotiable when they are seen in depth.
Further Research
For example, the public and the media at different times attributed the Virginia Tech killings to deficient university/local police relations, faulty intra-campus communications systems, an overly long response time by the university, loose gun-purchase laws, insufficient attention to disturbed students, and/or deficiencies in provisions for background checks of gun purchasers. Different narratives lead to different proposed solutions, only some of which reflect the simple dichotomy of the MoreGuns/BanGuns argument.

Moreover, the MoreGuns/BanGuns dichotomy pays scant attention to the likelihood that regardless of institutional policies, some guns will be present on campus. For example, a 1997 survey of students in four-year colleges reported that 3.5 percent of the respondents had a working firearm with them at college (Miller, Hemenway & Wechsler, 1999).

Another proposal that overly simplifies the problem is to evaluate "persons of concern" on campus and intervene before they can act on their intention to harm others. But campus murder and manslaughter are what Nassim Taleb (2009) calls black swans -events so unlikely that there is no way of predicting them.

A good part of that unpredictability stems from the fact that these incidents often involve an assailant with a mental disorder. Every experienced dean knows that many students and faculty on college campuses have such disorders-enough to make attending to each one both impractical and cost-ineffective, because the number of the mentally disturbed who commit violent events is vanishingly small.

We know very little about how either gun violence or the presence of guns on campus affect student attitudes and behaviors (LaPoint, 2009-2010). What have been the responses of faculty, students and administration to dramatic gun-related events? How might various groups respond to the knowledge that some in their communities are carrying concealed weapons? What effect might this knowledge have on relationships among students or between students and faculty?

Would either banning or encouraging guns on campus lead people to feel more threatened or more secure? If campuses were to declare that concealed weapons may be carried, how many students and faculty would be likely to carry them (in addition to those who may already carry them despite institutional bans)?

Scholars might inform the debate by maintaining, updating, and disseminating the Clery data in more usable formats, by preparing and updating an authoritative and current list of institutions that have adopted a gun policy, and by tracking violent incidents occurring on matched institutions with differing firearms policies. Data such as these are unlikely by themselves to change hearts and minds, but they may prove useful if the BanGuns and MoreGuns groups decide to move past unilateral pronouncements and consider sensible compromises that might end the gun fight. Academics can also challenge participants in the debate to present the evidence that supports the claims they are making.

If the present cultural conflict has any redeeming social value, some states' adoption of the MoreGuns position while others maintain a BanGuns policy might establish a quasi-experiment in which the consequences of both positions can be compared.

Of course, since the present conflict between groups is basically unrelated to data, still more data may still not have much bearing on their positions. Unfortunately, policymakers are more likely to be swayed by good stories than by good data, and one improbable hypothetical can be worth a thousand statistical tables.

The rational sequence on the firing range is ready, aim, fire. But the interpretive sequence in the college campus gunfight is ready (have an ideology), fire (attack using the ideology), and then aim (construct a narrative that relates the incident to the ideology). Neither MoreGuns nor BanGuns advocates evaluate the results of their activities in accordance with the ostensible goal of reducing campus violence. Instead, they give examples not of what has happened but of what might happen if their positions do not prevail.

Given Heller, it appears unlikely that absolute campus bans on firearms, at least at public institutions, can continue to exist. The question then becomes not whether but rather what kinds of firearms, carried by whom, where, under what circumstances, and with what restrictions regarding purchasing and permits.

A discussion at the 2011 meeting of the National Association of College and University Attorneys concerned what kinds of gun restrictions institutions could develop if they wished to restrict weapons, in light of the Supreme Court rulings and state-level statutes or constitutions that permit concealed carry. The answer was that they should prepare arguments that identify their institutions as "sensitive places," avoid absolute gun bans, and create policies that apply to places where people congregate (Keller, 2011).
Resources
We would all like to believe that making the campus safe is a matter of developing better policies and procedures and that we could accomplish this if we had the will to do so. But the truth may be that campuses are actually attending to the problem of murders and manslaughter and expending the maximum resources that they should to address it.

If this is true, we may already be at a threshold level of homicidal violence that must be accepted, because attempts to lower it still further may negatively influence the social benefits for which these institutions exist.

Rather than trying to further protect a campus from the already low possibility of homicides, resources might better be allocated to reduce more prevalent forms of campus violence such as forcible sex offenses and aggravated assault. Solutions to these problems might be more amenable to campus-based policy interventions and may have the added advantage of reducing the focus on the MoreGuns/BanGuns debate.

The country is filled with guns, guns exist on college campuses, and there doesn't appear to be much that can be done to completely eradicate them. But it may be that, under most circumstances, institutions can live with them.

1. American Association of State Colleges and Universities (2008) Concealed weapons on state college campuses: In pursuit of individual liberty and collective security, Author, Washington, DC.

2. Ayres, I. and Donohue III, J. J. (2003, August) Shooting down the 'more guns, less crime' hypothesis.. Stanford Law Review 55, pp. 1193-1312.

3. Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (2007) No gun left behind: The gun lobby's campaign to push guns into colleges and schools, Author, Washington, DC.

4. (2008, 26 June) District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, Supreme Court of the United States

5. Drysdale, D., Modzeleski, D. and Simons, A. (2010) Campus attacks: Targeted violence affecting institutions of higher education, US Secret Service, US Department of Homeland Security, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, US Department of Education, and Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.fbigov/stats-services/publications/campus-attack

6. Fisher, B. S., Sloan, J. J. and Lu, C. (1998, August) Crime in the ivory tower: The level and sources of student victimization.. Criminology 36:3, pp. 671-710.

7. (2012, March) Guns on campus: Overview., Retrieved from the National Council of State Legislatures: http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/educ/guns-on-campus-overview.aspx

8. Keller, J. (2011, 26 June) Colleges get advice on crafting weapons policies that will hold up in court.. Chronicle of Higher Education.,

9. LaPoint, L. A. (2009-2010) The up and down battle for concealed carry at public universities.. Colorado State University Journal of Student Affairs 19, pp. 16-21.

10. Lott, J. R. J. and Mustard, D. B. (1997, January) Crime, deterrence, and right-to-carry concealed handguns.. Journal of Legal Studies 26:1, pp. 1-68.

11. Meloy, A. (2011, Winter) Guns on campus: What are the limits?. The Presidency 14:1, pp. 12.

12. Midwestern Higher Education Compact (2008) The ripple effect of Virginia Tech: Assessing the nationwide impact on campus safety and security policy and practice, Author, Minneapolis, MN.

13. Miller, M., Hemenway, D. and Wechsler, H. (1999, July) Guns at college.. Journal of American College Health 48:1, pp. 12-14.

14. Miller, M., Hemenway, D. and Wechsler, H. (2002, September) Guns and gun threats at college.. Journal of American College Health 51, pp. 57-65.

15. Siebel, B. J. (2008, Spring) The case against guns on campus.. Civil Rights Law Journal 18:2, pp. 319-336.

16. Taleb, N. N. (2007) The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable, Random House, New York, NY.

17. Winkler, A. (2011a) Gunfight: The battle over the right to bear arms in America, W. W. Norton, New York, NY.

18. Winkler, A. (2011b, 15 April) The guns of academe.. New York Times A, pp. 27.

Robert Birnbaum ( rbirnbau@umd.edu), currently a professor of higher education emeritus at the University of Maryland, College Park, has served as vice chancellor at the City University of New York and the New Jersey Department of Higher Education and as chancellor at the University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh. His teaching appointments include a decade each at Teachers College, Columbia University, and the University of Maryland. He has written books and articles on university organization, leadership, and academic policy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
American Association of State Colleges and Universities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
National Association of College and University Attorneys

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Percentage of Clery-Reported Crimes on College Campuses

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
New Jersey Department of Higher Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Colorado State University Journal of Student Affairs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
District of Columbia et al. v. Heller , Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
US Department of Homeland Security , Office of Safe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by Robert Birnbaum One side views guns as essential to personal freedom, while the other side insists they are instruments for mayhem and violence. ... Every gun control proposal is an occasion for pitched battles, with the stakes portrayed as nothing less than the future of life, liberty and justice.

# data[].attributes.body
A professor’s view on carrying guns on campus.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
These days, it's not uncommon for college professors and school teachers to go on strike for better pay and benefits. But some are protesting due to another, growing concern: The threat of gun violence.

Daniel Hamermesh is an economics professor emeritus who has taught at the University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin) since 1993. This week, he announced that he would withdraw from his position next fall after the state passed a "campus carry" law, which will allow concealed handguns in classrooms, dorms, and other campus buildings.

"I don't want to bear the increased risk of facing a student in my office that gets disgruntled and pulls a gun out on me," he says.

Hamermesh, 72, says he will pursue teaching and academic opportunities at other institutions because his fear of being the target of on-campus gun violence has been "enhanced" with the new law, which goes into effect in August 2016-the 50th anniversary of a mass shooting at UT Austin that left 14 dead and 31 wounded.

"I worry about the feeling of tension this would engender because somebody might do something, and you're always going to be on alert," says Hamermesh. "I don't need to put up with that. Life is short, I don't need the money that much, so I'd rather do other things."

UT Austin currently educates about 51,000 students and boasts a teaching staff of about 3,000. Hamermesh says that the campus carry policy may deter both groups from pursuing educational and academic opportunities at the school, which was founded in 1881.

"Why take even a slight risk with an opportunity at UT when you can go elsewhere?" he says. "That's going to cost the university."

Hamermesh isn't the only member of the University of Texas college system that is against this law. He says that UT Chancellor Bill McRaven, a former Navy admiral, spoke out against the law before it was adopted last spring. And the president of UT Austin, Gregory L. Fenves, is also against the measure.

"Right now, the [UT Austin] president is holding a bunch of forums and has a committee designed to decide what they can limit in terms of the places where you can't carry guns," says Hamermesh. "But a general limit saying no guns in offices, I don't think that's going to happen, and similarly, no guns in classes, I don't think that's going to happen. You can't do that politically given what the legislation was passed as. I'm sure that President Fenves would like to do more limitations than what is in fact politically feasible."

Faculty members are concerned that the new campus carry law may have an impact on course curriculum and learning environment, says Hamermesh.

"A lot of people, especially in the Humanities department, are terribly concerned-why express something that might be controversial [and may make] a student really, really upset when there's an increased of having a student pull a gun on you?" he says. "It makes it a less desirable place for learning and it makes it less of a learning environment."

Furthermore, Hamermesh argues that professors should be able to set the terms of their classrooms-not lawmakers in the state capital.

"It impinges upon my freedom to operate my classroom exactly as I want," he says. "I view my classroom and my office as my castle, and I don't like the legislature telling me what can go on in my castle."

While some faculty members and students are "pro-gun," Hamermesh dismisses those who argue that the campus carry law will empower educators.

"I don't want to have a gun," he says. "I don't want to be involved in shooting at someone who happens to draw first. I'm probably too old to draw fast anyway-my reactions are slow-and having a gun would just make my life worse in so many ways."

Others in the community have similar feelings. A Takeaway listener named Victoria from Austin called in with this message:

"I'm very much against young men having guns on a college campus. The overwhelming perpetrators of gun violence are young men ages 18 to 30. Putting guns in the hands of immature, emotional, stressed out young men is just a bunch of bad decisions waiting to happen."

What do you think? Comment below, tweet us @TheTakeaway, share your thoughts to our Facebook page, or call us at 1-877-869-8253.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Professor Resigns Over Campus Carry Gun Law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These days, it's not uncommon for college professors and school teachers to go on strike for better pay and benefits. But some are protesting due to another, growing concern: The threat of gun violence. Daniel Hamermesh is an economics professor emeritus who has taught at the University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin) since 1993.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
These days, it's not uncommon for college professors and school teachers to go on strike for better pay and benefits. But some are protesting due to another, growing concern: The threat of gun violence.

Daniel Hamermesh is an economics professor emeritus who has taught at the University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin) since 1993. This week, he announced that he would withdraw from his position next fall after the state passed a "campus carry" law, which will allow concealed handguns in classrooms, dorms, and other campus buildings.

"I don't want to bear the increased risk of facing a student in my office that gets disgruntled and pulls a gun out on me," he says.

Hamermesh, 72, says he will pursue teaching and academic opportunities at other institutions because his fear of being the target of on-campus gun violence has been "enhanced" with the new law, which goes into effect in August 2016-the 50th anniversary of a mass shooting at UT Austin that left 14 dead and 31 wounded.

"I worry about the feeling of tension this would engender because somebody might do something, and you're always going to be on alert," says Hamermesh. "I don't need to put up with that. Life is short, I don't need the money that much, so I'd rather do other things."

UT Austin currently educates about 51,000 students and boasts a teaching staff of about 3,000. Hamermesh says that the campus carry policy may deter both groups from pursuing educational and academic opportunities at the school, which was founded in 1881.

"Why take even a slight risk with an opportunity at UT when you can go elsewhere?" he says. "That's going to cost the university."

Hamermesh isn't the only member of the University of Texas college system that is against this law. He says that UT Chancellor Bill McRaven, a former Navy admiral, spoke out against the law before it was adopted last spring. And the president of UT Austin, Gregory L. Fenves, is also against the measure.

"Right now, the [UT Austin] president is holding a bunch of forums and has a committee designed to decide what they can limit in terms of the places where you can't carry guns," says Hamermesh. "But a general limit saying no guns in offices, I don't think that's going to happen, and similarly, no guns in classes, I don't think that's going to happen. You can't do that politically given what the legislation was passed as. I'm sure that President Fenves would like to do more limitations than what is in fact politically feasible."

Faculty members are concerned that the new campus carry law may have an impact on course curriculum and learning environment, says Hamermesh.

"A lot of people, especially in the Humanities department, are terribly concerned-why express something that might be controversial [and may make] a student really, really upset when there's an increased of having a student pull a gun on you?" he says. "It makes it a less desirable place for learning and it makes it less of a learning environment."

Furthermore, Hamermesh argues that professors should be able to set the terms of their classrooms-not lawmakers in the state capital.

"It impinges upon my freedom to operate my classroom exactly as I want," he says. "I view my classroom and my office as my castle, and I don't like the legislature telling me what can go on in my castle."

While some faculty members and students are "pro-gun," Hamermesh dismisses those who argue that the campus carry law will empower educators.

"I don't want to have a gun," he says. "I don't want to be involved in shooting at someone who happens to draw first. I'm probably too old to draw fast anyway-my reactions are slow-and having a gun would just make my life worse in so many ways."

Others in the community have similar feelings. A Takeaway listener named Victoria from Austin called in with this message:

"I'm very much against young men having guns on a college campus. The overwhelming perpetrators of gun violence are young men ages 18 to 30. Putting guns in the hands of immature, emotional, stressed out young men is just a bunch of bad decisions waiting to happen."

What do you think? Comment below, tweet us @TheTakeaway, share your thoughts to our Facebook page, or call us at 1-877-869-8253.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Professor Resigns Over Campus Carry Gun Law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These days, it's not uncommon for college professors and school teachers to go on strike for better pay and benefits. But some are protesting due to another, growing concern: The threat of gun violence. Daniel Hamermesh is an economics professor emeritus who has taught at the University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin) since 1993.