No guns on campus: Peterson right to oppose arming Tech students
admin | November 14th, 2011 | Blog, Opinion | 16 Comments »
As many of you are aware, President Peterson recently interviewed with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution concerning proposed gun legislation. He said when asked if he supports the carriage of concealed weapons on campus, “Absolutely not.” Despite what you may think, I’m inclined to agree with him. Don’t get me wrong; I’m all for exercising the Second Amendment – just not in this case.
Here’s my logic: when you step forth onto a government institution, you sign away certain freedoms for the general benefit of your peers. This sounds incredibly 1984, I know, but consider why you can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater – bottom line, you’re putting those around you at risk.
Imagine, for a second, that someone decided to use the First Amendment to spark a deadly stampede for the exit. Is the Second Amendment so far removed from this?
I don’t mean to imply that I think there are homicidal maniacs at Georgia Tech, but I do think tensions run high here, tempers can flare, and things can get out of hand. The argument for guns on campus implicitly dictates that all Georgia Tech students are mature, responsible adults. For the most part that may be true, but there are those for which this is not the case, and giving them the opportunity to arm themselves could be a huge mistake.
But let’s get past the argument that perhaps arming students could increase the chances for inter-student violence and return to the notion that all of us here at Tech are mature, responsible, and brilliant adults. Let’s introduce the scenario that most people fighting for concealed carry on campus are probably most concerned about John (or Jane, to be polite) Doe who lives in Towers and has a 7-10 pm chemistry lab in the basement of the CoC. Say John has a run-in with a mugger who surprises him from behind with a weapon. If John were armed, he would immediately draw his weapon and…
Now, wait a second. There is no chance the average student would have time to draw that weapon unless the robber first announced himself before jumping out, unless that student was actually Howard Darby. The only way the student would have time to ready himself for defense would be if he carried that weapon in his hand.
“Alright,” you may be thinking. “Clever enough, but you still haven’t considered an even more heinous possibility: the chance that armed students may be able to neutralize a campus-wide killing spree like the one that occurred at Virginia Tech. Surely you would want to prevent such a disaster, wouldn’t you?”
The answer to that question is a resounding “Yes,” and my heart goes out to the families of all those affected by the disaster. But arming students simply isn’t the way to get it done. Maintaining our assumptions that all Tech students are mature, responsible, and brilliant, I posit the following. Assume the shooter has taken command of a recitation class and has disarmed and subdued his classmates. Should one or even a team of Tech students barge in there to the rescue, at best one and at worst most of the students in the scenario would be seriously if not critically injured. College students are not police officers, and say what you will about the APD, but in a firefight, I know who I would turn to (or get behind, more like). President Peterson makes an additional point on the aforementioned scenario which is worth repeating: units responding to the VT tragedy were looking for an armed student. There was no time to sift the good guys from the bad. Quoth President Peterson, “I believe if a student had a gun, he would have gotten shot.”
I agree, and I prefer not to borrow trouble.
–Andrew Malinowski
The presumption that an armed individual likely makes the situation worse is a false one. This has been proven again and again to be false. There have been people who attempted mass shootings where a person with a firearm has been present. It has NEVER made the situation worse. So, for all the hypotheticals about how an armed citizen would make things worse, it’s never been true.
Most of these madmen are stopped at the first sign of armed resistance. Not necessarily because they are shot by the person who pulled a gun in self-defense, but because once they meet that resistance, they realize their spree is coming to an end and often take their own lives. Still, that armed resistance prevented the killing of any more innocent lives.
In the mass shooting involving Luby’s Cafeteria in the early 90′s, the killer fled to a bathroom and killed himself after a law enforcement officer fired a warning shot into the ceiling. Anti-gun advocates love making up hypothetical scenarios such as “What if you missed?” and “What if he targeted you first?” Yet, in this scenario, it was clear that those questions are irrelevant, and a single shot fired into the ceiling 10 minutes earlier might have reduced the body count from 23 to 3. (Citation: Google: Luby’s Massacre)
Or, how about a Nevada bar, another place where gun control advocates make up scary what-if scenarios in order to show how it is “obvious” that law abiding citizens don’t need guns there, where a gunman bent on a mass shooting was stopped by a concealed permit holder. The gunman had shot 2 people and injured 2 more, but the body count was prevented from reaching double digits by a citizen with a firearm permit stopping the threat. He didn’t hit bystanders, and he didn’t get targeted first. He drew his weapon and prevented the wholesale slaughter of himself and other innocent people. (Citation: http://www.ktvn.com/story/8378846/three-people-dead-in-winnemucca-after-a-bar-shooting)
There’s also a Mississippi school, where a principal was able to retrieve and load a gun locked in his car to confront a gunman who was leaving (in order to go to another school and commit more murders before police showed up) and stopped the mass murders by simply pointing the gun at the gunman. (Citation: http://www.davekopel.com/2A/OthWr/principal&gun.htm)
The simple fact is, gun control advocates do not have facts on their side. The facts show that armed citizens can and do prevent mass shootings. All they can do is make up hypothetical situations and scary stories about how allowing guns on campus would have terrible results. Of course, in states like Utah, where guns are allowed on campus, the reality is that those fears have never panned out. Is it really the view of the Georgia Tech administration that students there are less mature than ones in Utah? Are Georgia Tech students really trying to claim to be the bottom of the maturity barrel?
Gun controls advocates often make up stories about what is “likely” to happen if guns are allowed on campus. Yet, here in this reply, I’ve come up with 3 real world scenarios where the “likely” not only didn’t happen, but an armed carrier did, or likely would’ve made a difference.
Finally, the idea that a you can come up a scenario where a gun wouldn’t stop a mugger doesn’t mean that your scenario is how every mugging or sexual assault goes down. There are thousands of stories all over the country where an armed citizen stopped someone from robbing their home, mugging them, or raping them. The fact that you can come up with a scenario where a weapon wouldn’t have helped is a poor excuse to disarm people who should have the opportunity to defend themselves if the opening exists. The argument by the pro-carry community isn’t that carrying a weapon is a magic bullet that stops all violent crime, only that it gives the citizen a fighting chance, and potential victims of violent crime, especially given the prevalence of muggings and sexual assaults around Georgia Tech campus, deserve that fighting chance.
Little does the author know there are numerous people carrying on his campus daily. In Georgia there is a list of exempt individuals who can carry on campus and the school can not stop them. Check out OCGA 16-11-130 this includes members of the US military and even GA military(National Guard and GA State Defense force members)
Also the author is mistaken about giving up some rights on campus. Because Georgia Tech is a subdivision of Georgia government its primary responsibility is not education it is in fact protecting the rights of the individual first then education. Protections of civil rights is the only reason we institute government see the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Given that a 21 year old person with the requisite background is able to become licensed to carry a frearm responsibly off campus in Georgia , could you please elaborate on what property or feature of the real estate that Tech sits on would cause the same licensed individual to lose his ability to carry a firearm responsibly? I believe that the dirt that Tech sits on has no such special properties, and that a licensed individual would be able to carry a firearm just as responsibly on campus as he would off campus. Of course this does not mean that he will always be able to draw against an attacker – he wouldn’t be able to in some off-campus situations, either. However, I disagree with your assessment that there is “no way” a student could ever draw against a threat, supported by the fact that people successfully use guns in self defense thousands of times each year. The only reason a student could never draw against a threat is if we continue to prohibit them from having that option.
“Here’s my logic: when you step forth onto a government institution, you sign away certain freedoms for the general benefit of your peers. This sounds incredibly 1984, I know, but consider why you can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater – bottom line, you’re putting those around you at risk.”
Are you sure about that? You’re failing to really think about the context of what you argue.
Can you yell “Fire!” in a theatre? You say that we cannot…right?
–
What if there IS a fire?
Do the limits on the right to free speech REALLY equate to no right to warn others of danger?
Does it presume that every exercise of the right to free speech is going to be a deliberate attempt to incite a panic without cause? (is it really an example of free speech at all?)
Does your above presumption that illegal behavior of yelling fire in a theater to cause a panic is only prevented by putting a ball gag upon every person as a means of preventing that sort of illegal behavior?
If the no guns on campus law is so effective, why are there continuing to be criminal actions on campus with such a law in place? How many robberies and kidnappings have there been in the past few years?
–
I think you need to examine your facts a bit more. If you think that armed response to a dangerous situation is always going to result in a negative end for the good actors, then you would have no problem with police having no firearms as well correct?
The criminal chooses the victim, time and place. Laws prohibiting guns on campus are only obeyed by the lawful. Criminal, by definition, break the law.
So why didn’t the president interview someone with a pro-carry perspective? When you step on campus you step into a danger zone. I remember being on campus in the ’90s and living in McDaniel hall (Techwood dorm) and there were many night we heard gunshots. Were these sounds emanating from campus? Probably not, but they were very close to me. That means I was, at any time walking on or near campus, a disarmed potential victim.
If the criminals know there are a small percentage of armed students walking on and near campus then that would serve as a better deterrent to the existing statutory law.
With all the news reports of students being robbed of their belongings on and near campus the law creates a huge population of potential victims. There are no hard borders. There is no gated security. There are no access controls.
We’ve known, the students have knows, the police have known, and the administration has known for decades they cannot prevent crime on campus. Making universities a gun-free zone is a loser concept, year after year. It’s time to try something different.
If engineers know anything, they know you can’t beat the third law of thermodynamics. Police know they can’t predict crime, only write a report about what happened later. The campus, being a government creation, is not a magic paradise. Government is created by man to protect our rights. The right to keep and bear arms is inalienable. Therefore, the laws making campus a gun-free zone are facially unconstitutional.
You are just plain stupid!!!!!!!
“College students are not police officers, and say what you will about the APD, but in a firefight, I know who I would turn to (or get behind, more like).”
I’d trust myself a heck of a lot more with a pistol in that situation than an APD Officer. Do a quick google search on how many of them FAILED their shooting qualification test and are still on the job (Not to mention their tests aren’t exactly set to a very high standard). I can guarantee you, many of the private citizens who legally carry in this state are better shots than your average police officer.
A 23 year old GT college student…I mean “Howard Darby”
http://www.rockdalenews.com/archives/4923/
A couple points for your consideration:
The Second Amendment is a restriction ON government not to infringe on our basic human right of self defense. That basic human right applies to you everywhere you go, including Tech’s buildings. Government didn’t grant us the right to bear arms, it is a inalienable right of every human being. The Second Amendment was supposed to protect that right from government infringement(as happened in English history in 1600′s and earlier)
Carrying a firearm is not like crying fire in a crowded theater. Carrying does not infringe on the rights of others. Most of the time, the only person who knows there is a gun present is the gun carrier. Carrying is a Malum Prohibitum act (unlawful act only by virtue of statute). Brandishing or pointing the gun at someone is the equivalent to shouting fire and doing so is against the law in all cases except for self-defense.
A basic fact of gun life is that a gun or other weapon is not an amulet that will keep you 100% safe. Bad things happen to people that have guns too. The difference is how bad things will end up. With a gun or other weapon, you will have a fighting chance and occasionally it makes a difference between slight injury versus death. According to the FBI, a high percentage of crime victims who fought back felt doing so reduced their injuries.
Bud Peterson thoughts on active shooting events have no basis in reality and is intentional mis-information.
In active shooter events, the end almost always occurs when the shooter FIRST encounters defensive force. Virginia Tech’s Cho killed himself when the cops finally made it into the building (after 11 mins)and at the FIRST time that he encountered defensive force. Hiding under a desk waiting for your turn to be killed is not defensive force and in fact endangers your life. FIGHT or FLEE. Don’t hunker down!
There are no examples of “good guys” getting shot during mass murder events. The reason is likely because the event is over by the time Law Enforcement arrives. Most of the mass murder events are very brief less than 5 minutes while Law Enforcement’s response time is roughly 10 minutes.
Finally, Law Enforcement isn’t allowed to shoot someone just because they have a weapon, even during active shooting events. The Georgia Supreme Court has ruled that Law Enforcement can’t even shoot the shooter if he is fleeing.
If SUMMARILY EXECUTING everyone with a gun is Georgia Tech PD’s plan, then they need a new plan. One that is Constitution and recognizes that not everyone with a gun is a bad guy.
Most cops shoot once every 6 months or year, which is exactly how often they have to do their POST qualification. Last year, almost 100 APD officers failed their qualification.
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/89-apd-officers-fail-2010-firearms-test-011911
Your typical cop is not a crack shot by any standard. Every CCW permit-holder I know shoots several times a month, including in competition, and is constantly training and improving.
Furthermore, the chance of a cop being in the room ready to help if needed are basically negligible. Your safety is YOUR responsibility. The supreme court agrees with me on this one. (Castle Rock v. Gonzales).
A few more things. The idea that, if the police respond, they wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between a mass shooter and a concealed carry permit holder, is ridiculous. The mass shooter is the one going from room to room executing the people inside. The concealed permit holder is not.
In the rest of the state of Georgia, where for the most part, the carry of firearms is legal with a permit, are we running into a big problem of people getting shot by police officers because they used a gun in self defense? Are we running into a big problem of concealed permit holders making the situation worse by shooting someone who had intentions to rob, rape, or kill them? No, we aren’t. We do have, however, many instances where law abiding citizens defend themselves from violent criminals. The author seems to think that once you cross onto college campus, the citizens who would choose to get a permit to carry guns are suddenly going to hit innocent bystanders left and right, and that police are suddenly going to gun down law abiding citizens. I find it funny that an article coming from the party of personal responsibility has so little faith in people being able to handle personal responsibility.
By the way, I am a Georgia Tech alumni. I studied CS there from 1996 through 2001, and it disgusts me that the Republican presence on campus has so little faith in its own students, that it believes that students in such a dangerous part of town shouldn’t be able to protect themselves, while students in Utah and Alabama have been able to do so with no ill effects.
Another thing: when some guys is a threat to others, who you gonna call? Another “guy with a gun,” i.e., the police. Having someone nearby lawfully carrying a gun is often help enough.
Yet another tired comparison to the fire call in a crowded theatre to justify restrictions on behavior. The comparison is never quite right.
The proper comparison to fraudulently yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre is an actual discharge of a weapon for no justifiable reason. If we are going to ban weapons because someone /might/ unjustifiably discharge it, then the more aptly comparable restriction of the 1A is that we gag people’s mouths before they enter the threatre in case they /might/ yell fire.
A responsible person doesn’t become irresponsible the moment he crosses some property line. An irresponsible person isn’t paying much attention to the line on either side of it. I agree with the commenter before me: I thought the Republicans were the party of personal responsibility. What happened?
The author might be interested to know that approximately 18 other states allow firearm carry on campus. Are students in those states magically more responsible than students in Georgia?
Government and public property is precisely the place where we are supposed to be free of arbitrary government restrictions. I feel sad that the new generations would believe we “sign away” rights for crossing some property line. They are not “rights” if they are set aside so easily.
My name is Ryan Moore, and I’m 23 years old and am licensed to carry a weapon by the State of Georgia. I am likely alive today because I was armed in one of the situations you claim we would be unable to react. In December of 2010, I had two men approach me from behind and put a knife to my neck as I was exiting my car to go grocery shopping. I managed to get the knife away and draw my weapon in self defense. This event took place the day I finished my finals for another college off of campus in Conyers, GA. I did not get shot by the responding police simply because I had a gun. The entire event was over in a few seconds and I was not shot by the responding police.
The right of self defense is inherent in being alive, by depriving someone the means of doing so you are depriving them of the right itself. The Second Amendment is there to keep the government from restricting the right of self defense; there is a contradiction in claiming to believe in the Second Amendment but also to believe in signing over your rights because you are in a government institution.
What is it that makes the Tech campus less suitable for armed citizens using guns to defend themselves compared to when those citizens are at other places like shopping malls, restaurants, parks, etc. People with gun carry permits can take their guns to all those other locations, and that’s never been a problem (permit holders are not shooting people or committing crimes at such places). Do Mr. Malinowski or President Peterson think that guns should be forbidden at all public or public-access locations too, or is there something special about universities? Is there something special about Tech or Tech students that makes it more dangerous to let young adults have effective tools for self-defense there?
If there’s something unique about a college campus, tell us what it is. But if there’s nothing about it that justifies a gun ban, and the reason for the gun ban is that “guns are bad” or “people with guns cause trouble” then what you’re really saying is that guns should be banned EVERYWHERE, including Tech, but not limited to Tech.
One additional set of thoughts.
What other rights does one grant that one “signs away” when one enters a university campus?
Would it be fair to say that a state right to vote is removed when a college student? What about a right to free speech? Right to peaceable assembly? Do the university police get to search your car or dorm room at will and arrest you for any found contraband?
The concept that a student gives up certain rights for being a student is absurd and flies in the face of basic US constitutional principles. I don’t think Jefferson and the other founding fathers would never accept such a position.
I am surprised to see a Republican espousing the same.