Concealed Handguns on College Campuses
In light of the current national debate over whether or not college students and faculty should be allowed to carry concealed handguns on campus, I would like to offer a few insights into the position in favor of allowing concealed carry on college campuses.
As far as I know, nobody is seriously recommending a mass arming of college students and faculty members. Nobody is suggesting that handguns be included in the orientation packets provided to entering freshmen. Nobody is suggesting that, along with laptop computers and chalkboard erasers, every teacher be issued a handgun. And most certainly nobody is recommending that anyone carry a concealed handgun if he or she is not completely comfortable with the idea and competently trained and licensed to do so. What is being suggested is that students and faculty who have already undergone the training, testing, and rigorous background checks required to obtain concealed handgun licenses be allowed to carry their concealed handguns on campus, just as they already do everywhere else.
Throughout this nation there are thousands upon thousands of college students, age twenty-one and above, and collegiate faculty members who, in accordance with state and federal laws, regularly carry concealed handguns in their off-campus lives. Since the statistics show that these same people carry their weapons without incident when not on campus, why should it be assumed that they would demonstrate any less discretion or sound judgment if carrying on campus?
When it comes to the national debate over gun control, many proponents of stricter gun control argue that gun rights advocates are unwilling to compromise. On the contrary, concealed handgun licensing laws are the perfect compromise. Prospective licensees undergo the types of training and stringent background checks that proponents of gun control advocate, and in return, the licensees are allowed to carry their handguns in public. That is a true compromise—both sides give a little, and both sides get a little.
The background checks performed on persons applying for a concealed handgun license are MUCH more extensive than the instant background checks performed when someone purchases a gun. In Texas, the background checks on applicants often take over a hundred days. In most states these extensive checks include both state and federal fingerprint checks, as well as research into sealed and expunged criminal record and records of mental illness. People are often disqualified for things like recent misdemeanor convictions, such as DUIs.
Along with undergoing background checks, applicants must also prove their handgun proficiency on a firing range and take a class in the applicable state and federal laws, including the legal use of deadly force. The practical shooting test proves an applicant’s knowledge of the proper use of his or her firearm. The class covers hypothetical scenarios, case studies, and the legal ramifications of both the lawful and unlawful use of a concealed handgun. It is almost impossible for an applicant to graduate from one of these classes without a grave respect for the serious responsibility of carrying a concealed handgun.
When a 2006 bill before the Virginia legislature that would have given holders of concealed handgun licenses the right to carry on college campuses was voted down, Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker happily proclaimed, "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty, and visitors feel safe on our campus." Unfortunately, as recent events have shown, feeling safe is not the same as being safe. The feeling of safety provided by “gun free zones” is an illusion. Even law enforcement officers believe so. An officer with the Lexington, Kentucky, Police Department explained, “If you have a concealed carry [license], then you should be allowed to carry anywhere there are not metal detectors. Saying you cannot carry in certain places, like schools, only makes the people that obey the law stop carrying, not the criminals. Criminals don't see the sign and think, 'Gee, I better not shoot there.'”
Declaring an area a “gun free zone” only frees that zone of guns carried by people intent on obeying the law. A person intent on committing murder or any other crime is not going to be deterred by the knowledge that possessing a firearm in a “gun free zone” is a relatively minor infraction of the law.
Many of those opposed to allowing concealed carry on college campuses claim that the mere presence of concealed handguns would be a distraction that would inhibit the learning environment; however, this disregards the basic premise of a CONCEALED handgun. Concealed handgun licensing laws require licensees to keep their guns concealed, out of respect for those people that might be made uncomfortable by the sight of an openly carried firearm. In the twelve years since Texas passed its concealed handgun licensing act, I have never once noticed another Texan carrying a concealed handgun, even though Texas has one of the highest rates of concealed carry in America. Properly concealed handguns are simply not noticeable to the average citizen. In fact, properly concealed handguns are often difficult to spot, even for a trained eye. Can you tell for certain which of the two men in THIS picture is carrying a concealed handgun? If you hadn’t been told that one of them is, would you suspect either of them of carrying a concealed handgun if you saw them on the street or in a classroom?
There is a popular notion among gun control advocates that a person must have years of training, through which he or she is conditioned to have superhuman reflexes and deadeye accuracy, in order to successfully use a concealed handgun for self-defense. This notion, however, is not supported by the facts. In cases like the recent massacre at Virginia Tech, the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School, and the 1991 massacre at the Luby’s restaurant in Killeen, Texas, the killers worked slowly and methodically, walking up to victims and shooting them at point blank range. It takes neither superhuman reflexes nor deadeye accuracy to defend oneself against a killer who walks from victim to victim, firing from only a few feet away.
In CNN’s interview with Emily Haas, one of the Virginia Tech gunman’s surviving victims, she described hiding under her desk, after her class heard gunshots in the room next door, “waiting and hoping he wouldn’t come in.” But he did come in, and now Emily’s professor and several classmates are dead. Perhaps, had someone in Emily’s classroom been armed with a concealed handgun, at least one person in that room could have done more than wait and hope.
In Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp’s 1992 testimony before the Missouri State Senate, in favor of a bill that was later passed, allowing citizens of Missouri to obtain concealed handgun licenses, Dr. Hupp described how she might have prevented the death of both of her parents, during the 1991 Luby’s Massacre, had she been allowed by the state of Texas to carry a concealed handgun:
This same testimony lead to the passing of concealed handgun licensing acts in both Missouri and Texas.
There is absolutely no evidence suggesting that the American people have any reason to fear letting concealed handgun license holders carry their concealed handguns on college campuses, the same way they already carry at grocery stores, shopping malls, and office buildings throughout the nation. Quite simply put, concealed handgun license holders, as a whole, do not contribute to America’s gun problems. In fact, concealed handgun license holders commit felonies at a rate on par with police officers. To date, no police officer has ever been killed by a concealed handgun license holder; however, there have been several well documented cases where police officers have been saved by legally armed citizens.
The issues of gun crime, gun control, and concealed handguns are complicated issues without simple answers, and we would all do well to form opinions on these issues based on careful examination of the facts, rather than on emotion.
As far as I know, nobody is seriously recommending a mass arming of college students and faculty members. Nobody is suggesting that handguns be included in the orientation packets provided to entering freshmen. Nobody is suggesting that, along with laptop computers and chalkboard erasers, every teacher be issued a handgun. And most certainly nobody is recommending that anyone carry a concealed handgun if he or she is not completely comfortable with the idea and competently trained and licensed to do so. What is being suggested is that students and faculty who have already undergone the training, testing, and rigorous background checks required to obtain concealed handgun licenses be allowed to carry their concealed handguns on campus, just as they already do everywhere else.
Throughout this nation there are thousands upon thousands of college students, age twenty-one and above, and collegiate faculty members who, in accordance with state and federal laws, regularly carry concealed handguns in their off-campus lives. Since the statistics show that these same people carry their weapons without incident when not on campus, why should it be assumed that they would demonstrate any less discretion or sound judgment if carrying on campus?
When it comes to the national debate over gun control, many proponents of stricter gun control argue that gun rights advocates are unwilling to compromise. On the contrary, concealed handgun licensing laws are the perfect compromise. Prospective licensees undergo the types of training and stringent background checks that proponents of gun control advocate, and in return, the licensees are allowed to carry their handguns in public. That is a true compromise—both sides give a little, and both sides get a little.
The background checks performed on persons applying for a concealed handgun license are MUCH more extensive than the instant background checks performed when someone purchases a gun. In Texas, the background checks on applicants often take over a hundred days. In most states these extensive checks include both state and federal fingerprint checks, as well as research into sealed and expunged criminal record and records of mental illness. People are often disqualified for things like recent misdemeanor convictions, such as DUIs.
Along with undergoing background checks, applicants must also prove their handgun proficiency on a firing range and take a class in the applicable state and federal laws, including the legal use of deadly force. The practical shooting test proves an applicant’s knowledge of the proper use of his or her firearm. The class covers hypothetical scenarios, case studies, and the legal ramifications of both the lawful and unlawful use of a concealed handgun. It is almost impossible for an applicant to graduate from one of these classes without a grave respect for the serious responsibility of carrying a concealed handgun.
When a 2006 bill before the Virginia legislature that would have given holders of concealed handgun licenses the right to carry on college campuses was voted down, Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker happily proclaimed, "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty, and visitors feel safe on our campus." Unfortunately, as recent events have shown, feeling safe is not the same as being safe. The feeling of safety provided by “gun free zones” is an illusion. Even law enforcement officers believe so. An officer with the Lexington, Kentucky, Police Department explained, “If you have a concealed carry [license], then you should be allowed to carry anywhere there are not metal detectors. Saying you cannot carry in certain places, like schools, only makes the people that obey the law stop carrying, not the criminals. Criminals don't see the sign and think, 'Gee, I better not shoot there.'”
Declaring an area a “gun free zone” only frees that zone of guns carried by people intent on obeying the law. A person intent on committing murder or any other crime is not going to be deterred by the knowledge that possessing a firearm in a “gun free zone” is a relatively minor infraction of the law.
Many of those opposed to allowing concealed carry on college campuses claim that the mere presence of concealed handguns would be a distraction that would inhibit the learning environment; however, this disregards the basic premise of a CONCEALED handgun. Concealed handgun licensing laws require licensees to keep their guns concealed, out of respect for those people that might be made uncomfortable by the sight of an openly carried firearm. In the twelve years since Texas passed its concealed handgun licensing act, I have never once noticed another Texan carrying a concealed handgun, even though Texas has one of the highest rates of concealed carry in America. Properly concealed handguns are simply not noticeable to the average citizen. In fact, properly concealed handguns are often difficult to spot, even for a trained eye. Can you tell for certain which of the two men in THIS picture is carrying a concealed handgun? If you hadn’t been told that one of them is, would you suspect either of them of carrying a concealed handgun if you saw them on the street or in a classroom?
There is a popular notion among gun control advocates that a person must have years of training, through which he or she is conditioned to have superhuman reflexes and deadeye accuracy, in order to successfully use a concealed handgun for self-defense. This notion, however, is not supported by the facts. In cases like the recent massacre at Virginia Tech, the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School, and the 1991 massacre at the Luby’s restaurant in Killeen, Texas, the killers worked slowly and methodically, walking up to victims and shooting them at point blank range. It takes neither superhuman reflexes nor deadeye accuracy to defend oneself against a killer who walks from victim to victim, firing from only a few feet away.
In CNN’s interview with Emily Haas, one of the Virginia Tech gunman’s surviving victims, she described hiding under her desk, after her class heard gunshots in the room next door, “waiting and hoping he wouldn’t come in.” But he did come in, and now Emily’s professor and several classmates are dead. Perhaps, had someone in Emily’s classroom been armed with a concealed handgun, at least one person in that room could have done more than wait and hope.
In Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp’s 1992 testimony before the Missouri State Senate, in favor of a bill that was later passed, allowing citizens of Missouri to obtain concealed handgun licenses, Dr. Hupp described how she might have prevented the death of both of her parents, during the 1991 Luby’s Massacre, had she been allowed by the state of Texas to carry a concealed handgun:
"I grew up in a house with no guns. My father was not 'Bubba Hunter.’ In fact he gave up fishing because he didn't like to clean fish. When I grew up and moved out on my own, I was given a gun by a friend, for self protection. I was taught how to use it and knew how to use it correctly, and I carried it my purse. I lived in the country by myself.
"Somewhere along the line I made one of my stupidest decisions—I was afraid that if somebody caught me with the gun in my purse, I could lose my license to practice [chiropractic medicine], lose my ability to make a living. So I took the gun out of my purse, and I left it in my car, which the laws in my state are kind of wishy-washy on. And I thought, 'Heck, if I needed it, it's probably going to be when I'm out on the road, in the middle of nowhere and, you know, my car is broke down or something.
"Everybody in here knows, I think, what happened in Luby's. But, in a nutshell—You know, we all think—and I know you do (indicating a committee member)—We all think that crime happens when you're walking down a dark alley. I've never been involved in any crimes. That's never happened in my life. I was with my parents AT NOON, on a bright sunny day, in Luby's, with a hundred and forty other people, in a town that's not a high crime town.
"This guy drives through the window and starts shooting. This guy has got no history—nothing. Well, my father and I immediately put the table up in front of us, and we all got down behind it, and I—You know your first opinion is “Is this guy robbing this place? What's the deal? What's going on?” And then you're realizing that all he's doing is simply shooting people.
"As he was working his way toward us, I reached for my purse, thinking, ‘Hah! I've got this son of a gun!’ Now, understand, I know what a lot of people think. They think, 'Oh, my God—Then you would have had a gunfight, and then more people would have been killed.’ Nuh-uh. No. I was down on the floor; this guy is standing up; everybody else is down on the floor. I had a perfect shot at him—It would have been clear; I had a place to prop my hand; the guy was not even aware of what we were doing.
“I'm not saying that I could have saved anybody in there, but I would have had a chance. That's all I'm saying is that I would have had a chance. My gun wasn't even in my purse—It was a hundred feet away in my car!"
This same testimony lead to the passing of concealed handgun licensing acts in both Missouri and Texas.
There is absolutely no evidence suggesting that the American people have any reason to fear letting concealed handgun license holders carry their concealed handguns on college campuses, the same way they already carry at grocery stores, shopping malls, and office buildings throughout the nation. Quite simply put, concealed handgun license holders, as a whole, do not contribute to America’s gun problems. In fact, concealed handgun license holders commit felonies at a rate on par with police officers. To date, no police officer has ever been killed by a concealed handgun license holder; however, there have been several well documented cases where police officers have been saved by legally armed citizens.
The issues of gun crime, gun control, and concealed handguns are complicated issues without simple answers, and we would all do well to form opinions on these issues based on careful examination of the facts, rather than on emotion.
posted by Douva | 6:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home