Should Professors/Staff On College Campus Be Able To Carry Arms?

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Skip the 'kiddies'. Links of course:


http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_04_15-2007_04_21.shtml#1176947872

[Eugene Volokh, April 19, 2007 at 1:05pm] Trackbacks
What Exactly Is the Reason Not To Allow Professors To Carry Guns?

Consider two scenarios:

1. An armed madman comes to a place and starts shooting people. None of the people who's around is armed.

2. An armed madman comes to a place and starts shooting people. Several (say, five) people in the vicinity are armed.

Which madman is more likely to be stopped quicker — the one who outguns everyone else 1-0, or the one who is outgunned 5-1?

If this weren't a madman but Jack Bauer — or even an average highly trained soldier — the five may well be unable to stop the one. But otherwise, the odds would seem to be more against the madman in situation 2 rather than 1, no?

No-one can prove anything, of course. Maybe the five would be the first to be shot. Maybe they'd run away. Maybe they wouldn't be around. Maybe they'd shoot and miss. Still, if you had to bet, which would you bet would be the worse scenario for the madman, and the better one for his victims?

Now of course if arming the five people for the extremely rare situation when they'll need to stop a madman will end up causing more harm than good in the much more common situations when there's no madman around, that might be a bad tradeoff. That is the argument I've heard against letting students possess weapons on-campus: They're young, they drink a lot, they'll start shooting when they get into a hot argument in class or at a debate. I'm not sure that's right, but let's say it is.

What, though, is the argument against allowing professors and other university staff to possess weapons, if they choose?
(Assume the professors lack criminal records, and assume they go through whatever testing and modest training is required to get a concealed carry permit, or perhaps even some extra training.) One argument is that it's just dangerous for law-abiding citizens to have weapons, because they'll start shooting over arguments or fender-benders. But that's precisely the argument that has been rejected by the 38 states that allow any law-abiding citizen to get a concealed carry license (or, in 2 of the 38 states, to carry without a license). What's more, as I understand it, people who get such licenses have in fact almost never committed unjustified homicide or attempted homicide (or even lesser crimes) using their guns. Whatever the pluses or minuses of shall-issue, the "licenseholders will start shootouts over petty slights" theory has not been borne out.

If Virginia and other states have found that it's safe to let law-abiding citizens carry guns on streets, in shopping districts, in parks, and the like, why wouldn't it be equally safe to let law-abiding professors and staff to carry guns in the university? What magic is there about a university that makes guns in law-abiding citizens' hands (again, let's even set aside college students, if we think they are unusually likely to behave foolishly) more dangerous at a university than elsewhere? I know there are some university professors who are, er, a bit odd. But wouldn't the average professor — or average university employee generally — who wants a concealed-carry license to carry on campus be at least as responsible as the average citizen who wants a concealed carry license to carry outside campus? Given that licensees don't start shootouts over fender-benders, and that gun store employees, police officers eating lunch, and other law-abiding people who are routinely armed don't start shootouts over arguments, why should we think that armed professors (to be precise, that small group of professors who chooses to get concealed carry licensees) would start shootouts at faculty meetings?

What then is the downside? One possibility is that if mad killers know that professors and staff may be armed but students won't be, the killers will shoot the professors first. It's hard to see why this would increase the total death toll, though, especially in cases such as this one. I doubt that the typical mad killer who's willing to shoot any university employees he comes across just in case they have guns would have spared them, and just shot a selected subset of unarmed students (and staff and faculty), if he assumed the employees were unarmed. And in any event, it seems to me that this modest risk is worth running, just as the risk that armed security guards would be shot first is worth running in order to provide the protection that armed security guards might offer.

Another possibility is that the mad killers would just start shooting lots of people very quickly, rather than at the relatively leisurely pace that we've seen in many mass killings. "I was going to walk around killing people over 15 minutes or half an hour," the killer might think (Kleck's Targeting Guns reports two mass killings that happened over 2-4 minutes, but seven that happened over 10 minutes or longer, including five that took 30 minutes or longer) — "but since there's now a substantial chance that I'll be stopped, I'll just shoot as many as I can as quickly as I can." But this strikes me as pretty unlikely; the pace of killings seems to be driven more by the killer's own mad desires rather than by a calculation such as this one.

Another concern might be that the universities would be held liable for their employees' misuse of guns. But, first, I take it universities already have liability insurance policies for possible misuse of weapons by university police officers. The employees who get concealed-carry permits (likely a small fraction of all employees, given that in shall-issue states the general pattern is that only a small fraction of all citizens get licenses to carry) could be added to such policies.

Given the pattern of safe use of guns by shall-issue licensees, I suspect insurance companies won't demand vastly higher premiums from universities for this. And the university could require some extra screening, testing, and training just to make sure that employees who get permits are as reliable as possible. Recall that many armed security guards are trained and screened only modestly, and they are likely to use their weapons more often (since they tend to guard places during high-crime times of day, and are more likely to be called over to the scene of developing crimes, which other armed university employees would rarely have to do). And if one thinks my analysis above is correct, and carrying by employees is pretty safe, but the liability system is unlikely to reflect this sound analysis, then some statutory liability limit — perhaps simply providing that professors and staff are armed on their own behalf, and the university thus wouldn't be liable for their actions — may be sensible.

I've also heard some arguments that suggest universities are different because they are places for reasoning, not violence: They should be gun-free zones (except of course for university police officers and security guards, who for some reason don't count) because that's needed to create the proper climate of peaceful inquiry. But the sad fact is that you can't make a university into a gun-free zone. Mad killers can bring guns, and use them, regardless of what policies you announce. The question is whether they will be able to use them against a disarmed population, or against a partly armed population. Allowing people the tools to defend themselves against the mad killers does not, it seems to me, worsen the climate.

[UPDATE: Finally, to give an even more essentialist version of the argument that universities are somehow unsuitable places for professors to be armed, let me quote a commenter: "There are a million reasons, but one will suffice for now. Schools and guns do not mix. Period. The more guns we inject into a school environment the worse it is for all involved...." It's hard to figure out how to deal with the argument that "Schools [including universities] and guns do not mix. Period." The commenter also mentions that professors "aren't trained for it, and I doubt they would be very good at it," but 38 states have taken the view that all law-abiding adults should be free to get a license to carry concealed weapons, and haven't had serious problems from the concealed-carry holders; the question is why those problems would suddenly appear at universities.]

* * *

Again, I should stress that this is not supposed to be a panacea, some guarantee that mad university killers will be immediately stopped. And I should say, as I've noted before, that there may be little point in planning for fortunately very rare events such as this one, which account for a tiny fraction of all homicides in the country. (The yearly average is that mass killings account for less than 0.1% of all U.S. homicides.)

But if we are trying to think what could have decreased the carnage, I've come around to the tentative view that allowing at least university employees to be armed is the likeliest solution. When one person — a not very well-trained person — comes into a place occupied by thousands of people, and kills over thirty, there's a simple explanation for why he could get away with it: Though he was outnumbered, they were outgunned.

If all university professors (and other employees) could be armed, and therefore some would be armed (again, I'm not saying that everyone will be armed, much less will be required to be armed, but only that some will exercise their right to get a concealed carry license allowing carry on campus), he would be both outnumbered and outgunned. Why wouldn't there be a very good chance that they would therefore be able to stop him earlier than he would have stopped otherwise?
And a follow up:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_04_15-2007_04_21.shtml#1177010979

[Eugene Volokh, April 19, 2007 at 3:29pm] Trackbacks
My Favorite Comment, from the Armed Professors Thread:

Posted by commenter Hoosier:

In order to reflect the hierarchy of faculty, there would have to be stratification:
Assistant Professors get muzzle-loaders
Associate Professors get semi-automatics
Full Professors get automatics
Adjuncts get a sharp letter-opener
Chaired Professors are irrelevant, since they never come to campus

UPDATE: Commenter The Hobbesian Father (Greg for short) follows up:

I'm sympathetic to the plan, but I can't see how it would possibly work unless the changes to campus policy allowed grad students to shoot the bad guys for the professors.
 

onedomino

SCE to AUX
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
2,677
Reaction score
478
Points
98
Score one for those with common sense!
Kathi please reconsider. What kind of atmosphere for teaching is an armed camp where at any moment a gun might be drawn? It is an atmosphere of fear, not learning. I would not enter a classroom where the teacher was packing a gun.
 

Vintij

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
105
Points
48
Location
Anaheim, CA
I agree with both of you to some degree. I always go back to the airplane comparison, I dont know why, but it makes the most sense. The teacher would not literally be armed with a weapon, its more like the cockpit of an airplane, where the gun is locked away in a box that only the captian or co-pilot can open. Same goes for the classroom, the gun would be in every class mounted on the wall behind bullet proof glass and could only be opened by the professors key, (wherever he decides to hide it) He could also tell his TA where the key was incase he was not able to open it. This would make everyone happy without putting a handgun in the hands of every student.
 

Diuretic

Permanently confused
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
12,653
Reaction score
1,410
Points
48
Location
South Australia est 1836
It would be better to have all facilities with wall-mounted automatic weapons that could be controlled by the campus police by remote control. They could keep surveillance on all parts of the campus, including the washrooms. The moment someone pulled a gun they could be taken out immediately.
 
OP
Annie

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Kathi please reconsider. What kind of atmosphere for teaching is an armed camp where at any moment a gun might be drawn? It is an atmosphere of fear, not learning. I would not enter a classroom where the teacher was packing a gun.
Why would you 'fear' a weapon you don't know exists? In most states we don't consider who may or may not be carrying a weapon. However, if someone who does not play by the rules comes along wanting to rob, rape, murder, it's very nice if someone else happens to come along that can stop the first. I know those 32 at VT will not be learning, nor will most on that campus for a time.
 

Emmett

Active Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
557
Reaction score
101
Points
28
Location
Murrayville, Ga
Why would we be able to trust a professor to shape the minds of our children, possibly becoming the most influencial person ever in their lives to that date but NOT trust them to protect them in the case of an emergency.


I say it again, and each of you knows I am right, if you were about to be slaughtered by a lone gunman, his footsteps are getting louder, he kicks away the table you have covered yourself with and takes aim at your head, I guaren-damn-tee you that at that very moment you wish the hell you had a gun and were able to use it. Now address that exact statement lefties and tell me I'm wrong. Not one of you will do it!
 

Diuretic

Permanently confused
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
12,653
Reaction score
1,410
Points
48
Location
South Australia est 1836
Why would we be able to trust a professor to shape the minds of our children, possibly becoming the most influencial person ever in their lives to that date but NOT trust them to protect them in the case of an emergency.


I say it again, and each of you knows I am right, if you were about to be slaughtered by a lone gunman, his footsteps are getting louder, he kicks away the table you have covered yourself with and takes aim at your head, I guaren-damn-tee you that at that very moment you wish the hell you had a gun and were able to use it. Now address that exact statement lefties and tell me I'm wrong. Not one of you will do it!
What the shooting scenario? Of course I'd wish I had a gun. Now what?
 

roomy

The Natural
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
4,862
Reaction score
980
Points
48
I think everyone should have a gun from school age, they should be taught how to use one alongside being taught how to walk and talk.Children should be given guns by their parents as soon as they are going to be out of control of the parental protection zone.It may be an idea that teachers can safely store the guns until home time but only if the teachers are armed and prepared to use their guns for the protection of the children.

I have more.
 

onedomino

SCE to AUX
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
2,677
Reaction score
478
Points
98
Score one for those with common sense!
Wearing a seatbelt or not, one has a far greater chance of being killed in an automobile accident than by gun violence in a classroom. Is it “common sense,” therefore, to not ride in cars? Perhaps when I swim in the ocean I should carry a bang-stick because I might be attacked by a shark. Maybe every time I leave the house I should wear a spacesuit because each year many people are exposed to meningitis and some die. To deliberately infect classrooms with guns to guard against the infinitesimally small chance of gun violence is not “common sense.” Rather, it is a manifestation of irrational fear.
 

Diuretic

Permanently confused
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
12,653
Reaction score
1,410
Points
48
Location
South Australia est 1836
I think everyone should have a gun from school age, they should be taught how to use one alongside being taught how to walk and talk.Children should be given guns by their parents as soon as they are going to be out of control of the parental protection zone.It may be an idea that teachers can safely store the guns until home time but only if the teachers are armed and prepared to use their guns for the protection of the children.

I have more.
I think that's a damn good start. However I'd only suggest that as the kids get older then they can go up in calibre, the weapons, I mean, not the kids. I would hate to see a five year old with a S & W .44 Magnum, for example. At that age I think a smaller calibre Glock would be the ticket. In all cases though the teacher - all grades and up to university - must have superior firepower. So I would think that an exemption for teachers to have full auto weapons is required. And students should be forced to keep their weapons in lockers at the back of the classroom and the classroom door locked and barred during class. The teacher may be able to keep their weapon, particularly when handing out the results of tests, I mean if some little bastard has sneaked a Derringer in and gets pissy with a test result........
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Gun Control? 82-Year-Old Former Miss America Stops Intruder With .38 Snub-nose
Posted by Noel Sheppard on April 23, 2007 - 00:37.
You can’t make this stuff up, folks!

As most NewsBusters readers are aware, the media have been foaming at the mouth this week for Congress to advance stronger gun control laws in the wake of the tragedy at Virginia Tech.

As a result, this absolutely delightful feel-good story about an 82-year-old former Miss America that defended her farm in Kentucky with a lil ol’ .38 caliber handgun is sure to be ignored by a media more interested in advancing an agenda than doing their job as disseminators of information.

As marvelously reported by the Associated Press Saturday (h/t NB reader Sherrie Z):

Miss America 1944 has a talent that likely has never appeared on a beauty pageant stage: She fired a handgun to shoot out a vehicle's tires and stop an intruder.

Venus Ramey, 82, confronted a man on her farm in south-central Kentucky last week after she saw her dog run into a storage building where thieves had previously made off with old farm equipment.

Ramey said the man told her he would leave. "I said, 'Oh, no you won't,' and I shot their tires so they couldn't leave," Ramey said.

She had to balance on her walker as she pulled out a snub-nosed .38-caliber handgun.

"I didn't even think twice. I just went and did it," she said. "If they'd even dared come close to me, they'd be 6 feet under by now."

Amazing. The article wonderfully concluded:

After winning the pageant with her singing, dancing and comedic talents, Ramey sold war bonds and her picture was adorned on a B-17 that made missions over Germany in World War II, according to the Miss America Web site.

Brava, Venus. Brava!


http://newsbusters.org/node/12229
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top