At the close of the Empty Holster Protest week, where students around the country were encouraged to wear bare holsters to show their support for concealed carry on college campuses, maybe now is a good time to take a look at what that would mean for CCSU. And maybe, why being able to bring concealed weapons to campus is not a great idea.
The local Riflery and Marksmanship club should be applauded for their efforts, for actually taking the step to get their message out, especially so because of its its unpopularity. Last year the discussion became heated after a CCSU student who spoke in favor of concealed carry in class was later grilled by campus police. The cause is extremely controversial at best, and may not carry with it the most sound reasoning and defense. Harmless holsters are fine, but the idea of the average student, faculty or staff bringing deadly weapons to campus seems too big a stretch and one crazy jump in the wrong direction.
In light of highly publicized and debated shootings such as those at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University, the discussion over concealed carry laws on college campuses has gained prominence for second amendment supporters. If usual concealed carry (all permitted carry is concealed) was extended to college campuses, it would mean that the laws would allow those with weapons permits to carry a concealed weapon to a university like CCSU. Currently, state law prohibits carrying any weapon onto public or private school grounds, or to school-sponsored events, which extends to colleges and universities.
Amendment of such appropriately prohibitive laws would no doubt mean that more weapons would be brought to campus. Eliminating all illegal gun use, the fact that those with gun permits would be able to bring their weapons into classrooms is still a bit frightening.
Supporters for laws on concealed carry at colleges, though not necessarily the Riflery and Marksmanship Club, have developed the argument that allowing those with permits to carry concealed weapons on campus would kind of level the playing field. They see it as a zone where shootings are more likely to occur simply because a deranged person could easily take out defenseless students or faculty or whomever. However, allowing legal concealed carry would change that situation, they argue – put a weapon in the hands of the shepherd, so to speak, so that if someone came after helpless students, some bystander packing heat would come to the rescue.
In regard to CCSU specifically, this argument leaves leaves out two very important factors. We have a police force who are actually trained to respond to emergency situations, and will no doubt handle the situations more calmly and directly than any other person who carries a weapon. Simply because a person who carries a permit has been to the range a few times and went through the basic NRA course to become licensed does not mean that in any way they are prepared to face a gunman.
CCSU is lucky to have a relatively low crime rate and most activity is drug or alcohol related in terms of routine police calls. According to the 2008 Clery Act, CCSU has experienced no illegal weapons possessions in recent years, nor any type of manslaughter, homicide or aggravated assault. At least these are the numbers reported to the CCSU Police Department. If more guns are thrown into the equation, the only good that could come of it would be the intimidation factor. At best a gun-carrying member of the CCSU community could scare off someone who would have harmed others, but that is not likely to happen. If anything, a vigilante mentality could spark a more violent response.
Another factor is, we are also lucky that CCSU is a small school – a 120-acre campus. It only takes maybe 15 minutes on foot to get from one end to the opposite corner of campus, if police somehow found themselves without vehicles. Unlike the sprawling Storrs campus at University of Connecticut, police here have less ground to cover to make for a much shorter response time in an emergency situation.
The pro-concealed carry personal safety argument, while a bit trickier to combat, still seems shaky. Police would still arrive quickly should something happen. This does not mean that that police will always arrive in time to save lives, as other infamous shootings have proven, but they have a much greater advantage in dealing with hostage or shooter situations that anyone else.
Without some type of landmark Supreme Court ruling to change the law, prohibiting concealed carry on college campuses is not likely to change soon. Legislation alone, nevermind the party battles, would keep the law pretty much the same for a while. Overturning prohibitive laws could take years, or a decade to accomplish.
Perhaps a concealed carry-friendly atmosphere would work for different campuses. They would have to be bigger, and prove some kind of good record in order to have more lenient carry laws. But in the case of CCSU, where the campus is relatively contained and orderly, concealed carry could not possibly help defend the community.
I was taught that I was responsible for not only where I was aiming, but also, where the bullet went after it hit the target. What I'm trying to get at, is that there are some situations where nothing can be done without possibly injuring an innocent bystander/victim. In that case, discression must be used and if one attempts to become involved in a scenario where they may compromise the livelyhood of innocent bystanders, then he/she should be accountable for those actions.
"He made a great point that not everyone who has a permit has the capacity to effectively face a gunman; which I would add could lead to unintended injuries."
This argument would work well if it did not apply to police officers as well. Just because you wear a badge does not make you fit to handle a situation. There are cops out there that, even after they graduate from the academy, are ill-equipped to handle a confrontation of that magnitude.
In the author's defense, he clearly didn't say that permit holders were "gun totting retards" (but I know one who is, though I promised Will I wouldn't say). He also didn't imply that permitted gun owners "would not be calm in a dangerous situation," that's the inverse of what he said. He made a great point that not everyone who has a permit has the capacity to effectively face a gunman; which I would add could lead to unintended injuries.
One last thing – I would love to know where Will got his facts:
"Whereas majority of pistol permit holders go to the range on a regular schedule of at least twice a month to practice their skills."
"The average response time for police is 4 minutes[.]"
For me, it's not about trying to save everyone else (although if help is needed, I'll gladly help), but instead, the primary reason why I would like to carry is because I want to save my own skin. I've been held up before (unarmed) and if you have never been in that kind of situation, then you wont understand how quickly it occurs. Will is right: it takes a while to get to the scene but you have to alert them of the scene first. We, who are in favor of concealed carry, are trying to uphold a right which is intrinsic to all Americans and one which is explicitly expressed in the Second Ammendment.
I, too, know a LOT of police officers-especiailly the ones here at CCSU on a first name basis. Don't get me wrong, they are great police officers, but when asked, they will OPENLY admit that they are not good shots at all. Some of them have backgrounds in the military as well as other law enforcement agencies.
When the author states that CCSU has a low crime rate as a premise for upholding the notion that concealed carry does not belong here, all I care to mention is that even if CCSU suffered from ONE incident, it would be enought to make those who follow the authors claims to eat their words. Those who are in favor of concealed carry are law abiding citizens; otherwise, they would already be doing it and would not care about changing the law.
I do take a slight offense to the implication that permitted gun owners would not be calm in a dangerous situation. Many permitted gun owners are former police/military types who have had rigorous training.
". Simply because a person who carries a permit has been to the range a few times and went through the basic NRA course to become licensed does not mean that in any way they are prepared to face a gunman." –
So you're coming to the conclusion that most people with pistol permits are gun totting retards who don't know how to shoot and are putting police on pistol marksmanship team.. Good job at failing primarily due to the fact that the majority of the police officers I know between state troopers and local law enforcement only go to the range twice a year. Whereas majority of pistol permit holders go to the range on a regular schedule of at least twice a month to practice their skills.
Another thing to nitpick on is to the author of this article. Have you ever been put in a situation where your life was at risk? The average response time for police is 4 minutes, and on foot as your stated no longer than 15 minutes, but life is not measured in minutes, life is measured in seconds.
To the claim that “a vigilante mentality could spark a more violent response.” is unfounded. Show me some data from the other states in this great nation that supports this claim. Many people claimed that “blood will run in the streets” and “it will be like the O.K. Corral”, but then it doesn't happen. These types of arguments came from many of the states that passed Right-to-Carry laws. Let us see your evidence that the Wild West was synonymous with shootouts on a daily basis. Was it more so than today? Or is your historical reference and facts only based on cheap novels and Hollywood pictures? The truth of the matter is, as noted by John Pierce in a 2009 column (http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minneapolis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m2d17-Dispelling-the-myth-of-The-Wild-West): “In his book, Frontier Violence: Another Look, author W. Eugene Hollon, provides us with these astonishing facts:
In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.
In Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870.
Zooming forward over a century to 2007, a quick look at Uniform Crime Report statistics shows us the following regarding the aforementioned gun control “paradise” cities of the east:
DC – 183 Murders (31 per 100,000 residents)
New York – 494 Murders (6 per 100,000 residents)
Baltimore – 281 Murders (45 per 100,000 residents)
Newark – 104 Murders (37 per 100,000 residents)
It doesn’t take an advanced degree in statistics to see that a return to “wild west” levels of violent crime would be a huge improvement for the residents of these cities.
The truth of the matter is that the “wild west” wasn’t wild at all … not compared to a Saturday night in Newark.”
We are not saying that the CCSU Police Department are not equipped or trained to handle such situations, what we are saying is that some of us who decide to take responsibility for ourselves and our safety, we do not want to have to rely on someone else who may respond to the situation too late to make a difference. I am not saying that an armed citizen can or will make a difference, what I am saying is that at least give us the option and the chance. I am not stating I know the operating procedures of the CCSU PD, but even if the Police arrive on site quickly, how long will it be until they are authorized to take any sort of action? I don't know about you, but I do not want to sit and wait when I could, just about anywhere else, attempt to save my own life.
Also,the US Supreme Court has ruled ten different times, that they, the government are not liable for an individual's safety. Ten different times they have confirmed this, yet you are willing to go out and emphatically state that you, a school are guaranteeing the students safety?
First of all, there is no actual statute stating that a firearm cannot be carried on a COLLEGE campus, only primary and secondary schools are listed. (Sec. 53a-217b. Possession of a weapon on school grounds: Class D felony. (a) A person is guilty of possession of a weapon on school grounds when, knowing that such person is not licensed or privileged to do so, such person possesses a firearm or deadly weapon, as defined in section 53a-3, (1) in or on the real property comprising a public or private elementary or secondary school, or (2) at a school-sponsored activity as defined in subsection (h) of section 10-233a.
(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to the otherwise lawful possession of a firearm (1) by a person for use in a program approved by school officials in or on such school property or at such school-sponsored activity, (2) by a person in accordance with an agreement entered into between school officials and such person or such person’s employer, (3) by a peace officer, as defined in subdivision (9) of section 53a-3, while engaged in the performance of such peace officer’s official duties, or (4) by a person while traversing such school property for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting or for other lawful purposes, provided such firearm is not loaded and the entry on such school property is permitted by the local or regional board of education.
(c) Possession of a weapon on school grounds is a class D felony.
(June Sp. Sess. P.A. 92-1, S. 1; P.A. 93-416, S. 7; P.A. 94-221, S. 1; P.A. 98-129, S. 15; P.A. 01-84, S. 8, 26.)
History: P.A. 93-416 amended Subsecs. (a) and (c) to replace reference to offense of “possession of a firearm on school grounds” with revised name of “possession of a weapon on school grounds” due to inclusion of deadly weapon in offense in Subsec. (a); P.A. 94-221 amended Subsec. (a) to add Subdiv. (2) re school-sponsored activities and amended Subdiv. (5) of Subsec. (b) to substitute “permitted by” the board of education for “not prohibited by school officials” and, notwithstanding the provisions of Subsec. (b), provided for the prohibition by boards of education of the possession of firearms by students in or on school property or at a school-sponsored activity; P.A. 98-129 amended Subsec. (a) to add element that the person know that he is not licensed or privileged to possess a weapon on school grounds and amended Subsec. (b) to delete former Subdiv. (1) that had made provisions of Subsec. (a) inapplicable to the lawful possession of a firearm by a person holding a valid state or local permit to carry such firearm, renumbering the remaining Subdivs. accordingly, and deleted provision that had authorized boards of education and supervisory agents of private schools to prohibit the possession of firearms by students in or on school property or at a school-sponsored activity; P.A. 01-84 amended Subsec. (b) to exempt in Subdiv. (1) possession of a firearm for use in an approved program “at such school-sponsored activity” and made technical changes for purposes of gender neutrality in Subsecs. (a) and (b), effective July 1, 2001. ) The only thing barring legal permit holders to carry on a college campus is a regulation in the student handbook, under the “Rights and Responsibilities” section that reads: “Be it further resolved: That the Board of Trustees for State Universities hereby declares that the following are forms of conduct contrary to the purposes and well being of the State Universities and are prohibited. Such conduct provides grounds for disciplinary proceedings leading to probation, suspension, or expulsion, and to resort to enforcement agencies when necessary. #6: Possession of firearms or any other dangerous weapon or removing such person from any place where he or she is authorized or otherwise free to remain;”
Secondly, why is the idea of an armed law-abiding citizen so frightening? We all do it at most of the other places we go on a day to day basis, the mall, supermarkets, restaurants etc. and you do not feel so threatened in those locations, do you? What makes a college or University so special or sacred? Most college aged individuals spend a large majority of their time on campus, thus effectively rendering themselves defenseless by the above stated regulation.
First of all, there is no actual statute stating that a firearm cannot be carried on a COLLEGE campus, only primary and secondary schools are listed. (Sec. 53a-217b. Possession of a weapon on school grounds: Class D felony. (a) A person is guilty of possession of a weapon on school grounds when, knowing that such person is not licensed or privileged to do so, such person possesses a firearm or deadly weapon, as defined in section 53a-3, (1) in or on the real property comprising a public or private elementary or secondary school, or (2) at a school-sponsored activity as defined in subsection (h) of section 10-233a.
(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to the otherwise lawful possession of a firearm (1) by a person for use in a program approved by school officials in or on such school property or at such school-sponsored activity, (2) by a person in accordance with an agreement entered into between school officials and such person or such person's employer, (3) by a peace officer, as defined in subdivision (9) of section 53a-3, while engaged in the performance of such peace officer's official duties, or (4) by a person while traversing such school property for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting or for other lawful purposes, provided such firearm is not loaded and the entry on such school property is permitted by the local or regional board of education.
(c) Possession of a weapon on school grounds is a class D felony.
(June Sp. Sess. P.A. 92-1, S. 1; P.A. 93-416, S. 7; P.A. 94-221, S. 1; P.A. 98-129, S. 15; P.A. 01-84, S. 8, 26.)
History: P.A. 93-416 amended Subsecs. (a) and (c) to replace reference to offense of "possession of a firearm on school grounds" with revised name of "possession of a weapon on school grounds" due to inclusion of deadly weapon in offense in Subsec. (a); P.A. 94-221 amended Subsec. (a) to add Subdiv. (2) re school-sponsored activities and amended Subdiv. (5) of Subsec. (b) to substitute "permitted by" the board of education for "not prohibited by school officials" and, notwithstanding the provisions of Subsec. (b), provided for the prohibition by boards of education of the possession of firearms by students in or on school property or at a school-sponsored activity; P.A. 98-129 amended Subsec. (a) to add element that the person know that he is not licensed or privileged to possess a weapon on school grounds and amended Subsec. (b) to delete former Subdiv. (1) that had made provisions of Subsec. (a) inapplicable to the lawful possession of a firearm by a person holding a valid state or local permit to carry such firearm, renumbering the remaining Subdivs. accordingly, and deleted provision that had authorized boards of education and supervisory agents of private schools to prohibit the possession of firearms by students in or on school property or at a school-sponsored activity; P.A. 01-84 amended Subsec. (b) to exempt in Subdiv. (1) possession of a firearm for use in an approved program "at such school-sponsored activity" and made technical changes for purposes of gender neutrality in Subsecs. (a) and (b), effective July 1, 2001. ) The only thing barring legal permit holders to carry on a college campus is a regulation in the student handbook, under the “Rights and Responsibilities” section that reads: “Be it further resolved: That the Board of Trustees for State Universities hereby declares that the following are forms of conduct contrary to the purposes and well being of the State Universities and are prohibited. Such conduct provides grounds for disciplinary proceedings leading to probation, suspension, or expulsion, and to resort to enforcement agencies when necessary. #6: Possession of firearms or any other dangerous weapon or removing such person from any place where he or she is authorized or otherwise free to remain;”
Secondly, why is the idea of an armed law-abiding citizen so frightening? We all do it at most of the other places we go on a day to day basis, the mall, supermarkets, restaurants etc. and you do not feel so threatened in those locations, do you? What makes a college or University so special or sacred? Most college aged individuals spend a large majority of their time on campus, thus effectively rendering themselves defenseless by the above stated regulation.