Guns are not the answer

Sokolow mentions that allowing guns on campus would result in “increases in armed robbery, muggings, escalation of interpersonal and relationship violence, etc.” One other negative consequence of arming students he didn’t mention is an increase in suicides. States with the most lenient gun laws also have the highest suicide rates. What worse place could there be for a cache of guns than dormitories with students emerging from adolescence, struggling to get through college, learning to live on their own, trying to find their way in the world?

Christian Anderson, Graduate Student at Penn State University, at 7:10 am EDT on May 1, 2007

Background checks?

Clearly the author is not a young single female teaching a night class who first learns that her student is on trial for rape when she reads in the paper that he had been convicted.

However, what I really want to know is why a risk manager does not care if a registered sex offender is in a college class with a minor dual-enrolled high school student? The only reason I can imagine is that the college reduces its risk of being sued for missing something if it has a policy of never trying to get that kind of information.

I do endorse his view that a response be measured. The problem at VaTech was that they spend two hours measuring it. I never did hear who was in that long meeting. Was it PR people or the university counsel that delayed sending a simple e-mail?

CCPhysicist, at 8:50 am EDT on May 1, 2007

Almost but not quite

The author is correct in suggesting that institutions need to provide a measured response. However as much as I agree with much of the content here, I absolutely disagree with the discussion on cell phone notifications.

Notification is not strictly designed for a shooter in mind. Weather closings are a great reason to look into a notification system that might be used for other things. Nothing is more useful when it comes to reaching a student anywhere, in seconds. No system that I know of will ever reach absolutely everyone so the rule of advertising comes into play here. The more ways you can get your message out, the more likely someone will hear it. I may be wrong but I understand the phone lines were overloaded in Virginia, but students were able to continue text messaging parents and friends outside of the situation. As far as who maintains the system, why is the author so adamant that students won’t take advantage of an easy technology? If the university sets an intelligent policy, there is no extra work on their part. Registration and maintaining student info is very easy if the roll out is thought out. Participation is elected and in the end, it is the student’s responsibility to make sure the contact info is current. I thought that encouraging responsibility was a hallmark of what we do? Is it perfect? Absolutely not! But it can it be a very effective mass notification tool if used correctly? You bet.

MDW, at 11:05 am EDT on May 1, 2007

Concealed Weapons

Sam, the person with a concealed weapon in the Utah mall shooting was an off-duty police officer from a nearby city. Most off-duty police officers do carry their weapons with them. I seriously question whether an average gun owner with a concealed weapons permit would have been able to engage the shooter in the same way that a trained police officer was able to do.

I don’t believe that more people carrying weapons is ever the answer. The survivors of the Utah shooting are lucky the off-duty officer was there. There is no guarantee that it would have turned out the same way if a concealed weapon permit holder without the same training had been there instead.

Former Utahn, at 12:35 pm EDT on May 1, 2007

“Many pro-gun advocates have talked about the deterrent and defense values of a well-armed student body, but none of them have mentioned the potential collateral criminal consequences of armed students: increases in armed robbery, muggings, escalation of interpersonal and relationship violence, etc.”

The crime rate among concealed weapons permit holders is downright infanitesimal. A study in Florida (one of the first states to widely issue CCW permits) found that permit holders were 100 times less likely to commit a crime than the general public. The idea that allowing concealed weapons holders to carry on campus will increase crime just isn’t supported by the evidence.

Chris, at 1:50 pm EDT on May 1, 2007

no guaruntees

I should also add that I agree there is no knowing what might have happened if the concealed carry permit holder in the Utah mall had had a job other than police officer. The death toll may have been higher or lower.

The only guaruntee is that if NO concealed carry permit holder was present, things would have been a lot worse. And that is the way you are determined to make them on our college campuses.

Sam, at 2:35 pm EDT on May 1, 2007

religious profiles

Wiccans are loners and outsiders, eh? Interesting how you included that specific faith in that category, especially since we’re one of the most visible non-mainstream religions around. The ones that are not public don’t make up the majority. Please don’t profile us as such. Thank you!

WiccanTexan, at 3:15 pm EDT on May 1, 2007

I should point out also, that Ira’s comment about “untrained armed 18-year-olds” is doubly “uninformed". In order to get a concealed carry permit almost anywhere, you have to be both trained and 21 years old.

Samwise, at 6:00 pm EDT on May 1, 2007

Virginia Tech — a possible solution

Campus Related Shootings and a Possible Method of Reducing their Effects

By Peter M. Tarley / Director Police Training Division / PTarley@aol.com

In the wake of the tragedy at Virginia Tech, colleges and universities are revisiting their campus’s preparedness and response capabilities to violent and criminal activity. The following proposal offers a multidimensional solution that may be of mutual benefit to the institution and to the local community.

The primary feature is that local and state police officers are given opportunities to take courses at your institution at a discounted rate or at no charge. This proposal has three major benefits:

1) It places professional police officers, as off-duty adult learners, in a variety of classes across your campus, thus providing opportunities for both immediate response to crises and (if publicized) as a deterrent for individuals considering criminal activity

2) It provides a valuable civic service by reaching out to a community group—the police profession—who have historically not pursued their professional development in an academic environment; and

3) It expands your pool of potential adult learners who may use this opportunity to become degree-seeking students.

Shootings and other violent and criminal activity on college campuses will never be eliminated. However, it may be possible to reduce the frequency of these attacks and/or reduce the number of victims. Officers enrolled in courses would agree to discretely carry their concealed handgun while on campus attending classes. These individuals would be known to campus security personnel as armed off duty police personnel, but their armed status would not be apparent or known to fellow students. In addition to active duty police officers, The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 effectively authorizes retired officers, who annually qualify with their sidearm, to be armed throughout the United States. Between active and recently retired officers there exists a large pool of highly trained individuals, experienced in controlling violent situations who could intervene in an appropriate manner to terminate or reduce the effects of any violent and criminal activity prior to the arrival of uniformed law enforcement campus security personnel.

Violent and life threatening incidents are by nature, unpredictable, seemingly spontaneous, highly violent and in most cased of short duration. These characteristics make it difficult for a uniformed force to mobilize and respond in time to prevent massive loss of life. The only way to effectively respond is by having embedded personnel in proximity. There is no guarantee that such personnel will be at the right place at the right time. However, if there are no such embedded responders on campus it is a certainty that there will not be anyone there at the right place at the right time.

In addition to terminating a situation, the fact that a college/university is participating in such a proactive program means that the random distribution of these armed student/police makes it impossible for an individual to determine if he/she will encounter armed intervention during an attack. It functions much like the current sky marshal program in that it is not known if a specific flight has armed security personnel on board. A college/university may determine that such a program should not be made public or it may determine that publicizing such a program may be beneficial. A significant number of people are reassured that there are trained, armed individuals on flights operated by American carriers. The institution would of course, determine which approach would best serve their needs.

An additional benefit is that it provides important educational opportunities to a group—the police community—who could immediately benefit. A better educated police force is better able to serve the people in our communities. This is capacity building at its best and would provide an important linkage between the institution and the local community through outreach and publicity.

Finally, this proposal would have minimal financial impact on the institution. The institution could determine which courses are available for such discounts based on availability and/or allow officers to register only after all traditional students have already done so, thus not preventing any regular students from gaining entry to a particular class. In many ways, in fact, this proposal may generate revenue for the

institution since the officers would purchase books, supplies and meals while on campus, as well as potentially extending their coursework to become degree candidates.

I can of course provide you with additional information concerning methods of implementation for such a program and some legal considerations to be addressed.

Peter M. Tarley, Police /security Professional at Police Training Division, at 8:35 pm EDT on May 1, 2007

Response to Responses

I am so glad the Op-Ed provoked debate, its intended purpose. A few further thoughts:

1) I do not want to expose anyone to dangerous sex offenders on college campuses. But, I fear that background checks might help less than complying with the Wetterling Act and the Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act would. These are two laws designed to get information on sex offenders out to college communities, but we need to focus on better compliance. CBC’s are usually limited to one state, do not include juvenile records, and often reflect a plea bargained result, rather than the true seriousness of a crime. For what they cost, we have to ask if what we get is worth it. Would colleges even exclude someone from admission just on the basis of a sex offense? Some might, but certainly not all.

2) I don’t outright oppose text warning systems, and agree they could be helpful. BUT, only if the college is already fully funding mental health and health education/prevention/bystander intervention programs already, and has the extra cash to implement such a system on top of everything else that it is doing well. Otherwise, it is not the best place to spend the money, in my opinion. The need for such systems is infrequent, and the need for improved health education and mental health services is so much more crucial to acts like Cho’s.

3) To the post that alleged that Cho did not have a mental illness, I am arguing that when a judge found him to be an imminent threat of harm to himself, and committed him temporarily, this constituted enough evidence of a disability that follow-up might have been possible, had the university known. This is not surmise, but fact, based on court records.

4) To the WiccanTexan, I did not intend to marginalize Wiccans, but to point out that many do. I hope my comments encouraged campuses to honor difference for the sake of the richness it contributes—Wiccans included.

Brett Sokolow, From the Author at NCHERM, at 4:30 am EDT on May 2, 2007

What people are forgetting is the incredible rarity of events such as these. The media blows them so out of proportion that this is easy to forget.

I think that going to such an extreme measure as to allow students to carry firearms on campus not only would make the community all the more unsafe, but is also an insane, knee-jerk reaction. I understand that these events leave everyone scrambling to think that they need to do something but arming students is certainly not the wise choice.

Julie, at 4:00 pm EDT on May 2, 2007