Posted on 06/14/2004 10:08:00 AM PDT by Stew Padasso
No right or need to bear firearms on college campuses
By David R. Keller
In a recent vote, the faculty at Utah Valley State College endorsed by a 2-to-1 margin the University of Utah's ban on firearms. This majority position is correct two reasons.
First, it is extremely dubious that the presence of armed citizens makes campuses "safer."
Imagine a scenario in which shooters, like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, or the characters in Gus Van Sant's movie "Elephant," open fire at school. The image that comes to mind is utter chaos, with scores of students, faculty and staff dashing for cover in every direction. If the attack occurred in an auditorium or stadium, that number would be hundreds or thousands.
In such a situation, state Sen. James Evans, R-Salt Lake City, believes the presence of armed civilians would be beneficial. As he put it, "I wonder if a janitor or teacher at Columbine had a concealed weapon how many children's lives would have been saved."
Unfortunately, such optimism is dangerously misplaced. Attackers are not likely to be standing alone out in the open, providing an easy target. Rather, they probably would be in the midst of a panicking crowd.
An armed citizen would have to evaluate such a rapidly changing scenario in a split second, and be incredibly accurate in discharging a weapon to avoid accidentally shooting an innocent person near or behind the attacker.
The decision to open fire in a complex, rapidly evolving situation requires exhaustive training and skill. It is the kind of intensive training and experience that we require of our law-enforcement officers and military personnel. And it is precisely the kind of training a teacher, janitor or the vast majority of people with concealed weapon permits are unlikely to have.
Simply obtaining a permit hardly prepares one for hitting a moving target in a churning crowd.
Hence, the claim made by W. Clark Aposhian, the chairman of the Self Defense Instructors Network, that there is nothing to fear from law-abiding citizens with guns, could not be farther from the truth. A shoot-out between a criminal and an armed civilian increases the potential for carnage, instead of decreasing it.
And despite the best of intentions, if a person inadvertently kills an innocent bystander, she or he could be tried for manslaughter. This realization is presumably the rationale of the Jordan School District to renounce liability for the actions of armed employees.
Second, assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, it is far from clear that banning concealed weapons from campuses is a violation of constitutional rights. The wording of the Second Amendment, which states, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," must be taken in context.
At the time of its framing, the patriots needed desperately to rebuff Great Britain's well-equipped infantry. Their best hope was to form a militia from the ranks of an armed civilian population.
So the intent of the Second Amendment was to ensure the existence of a well-regulated militia to protect Americans from invading foreign forces, not to protect us from one another. That is the job of law enforcement. The right to bear arms does not equal the right to bear arms at all times in all places.
In the end, the claim that "more guns mean less violence" is seriously misguided. If our legislative leaders are really serious about reducing the possibility of violence at schools, then they should act to increase the number armed professionals on campus, rather than incorrectly assuming that a heavily-armed citizenry is up to the challenge.
----- David R. Keller is director of the Center for the Study of Ethics at Utah Valley State College.
leftist crap!
"An armed citizen would have to evaluate such a rapidly changing scenario in a split second"
Yeah - Look for the "smoking gun!"
liberal BS continues unabated
gotta go puke now, back later.....
Mr. Keller, I respect your right to assume that you would react to a shooting by soiling your pants and being totally incapable of taking any effective action. However, I see nothing to suggest you have the background or experience to generalize that the rest of the world must react in the same fashion.
"A shoot-out between a criminal and an armed civilian increases the potential for carnage, instead of decreasing it."
No s***. My chances of injuring an armed criminal if I don't have a gun are slim and none.
When co-eds get raped,
how often do they get raped
in a "churning crowd?"
imagine a situation where a Harris and Kleibold were able to casually stroll down the hallway opening fire at whim, and nobody could oppose them. imagine the death toll!
oh! it's been done. nevermind the truth.
but, but - the public is so STOOPID! they aren't capable of defending themselves - just look at colombine!
yeah, right /sarcasm
Man who killed two at UNC escapes from mental hospital
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1151726/posts
I guess this guy never even read about the timeline for Columbine. The killers took their time going from room to room looking for students hiding from them. It would have been quite easy to pick out who they were. Instead, this idiot wants gun-free zones that become killing fields if someone with bad intent gets a gun inside.
Another wasted college education, apparently...
Or even in a place/situation where someone else would even know what is going on, much less be able to render aid?
Seems like Utah Valley State just put up a bullseye on their chest.
Hence my a**. When you start with a flawed premise, your conclusion is also flawed.
Must be why so many schools sponsor security escort services for female students who have to cross campus at night.
More bleating from the sheeple. Yes, yes - much better to simply hope the bad guy doesn't pick YOU, than to actively resist and thus increase the "carnage".
As if, being a hapless victim of an armed criminal is somehow morally superior to shooting back. The UK Labor philosophy in action.
Leftist drivel.
Nor, apparently is any in-depth knowledge of the subject he is addressing. Statistics show that the "legal-gun carrying citizen" has a BETTER record of "not shooting innocent civilians" than do police.
*Howling with laughter*
This clown knows nothing about self-defense, law enforcement, or the military.
Must we point out that at Columbine, law enforcement ran away, then waited outside until the shooting stopped?
Or, "an advance party of reptilian safropods from the planet Mongo." They'd have such superior weapons that our fire arms would only brosgifate them. Mine is a much more powerful argument.
This left wing silliness will change quickly should there be a serious of rapes or attacks on campus. It will have been too late for those already attacked but this jerk can always place that blame somewhere else, Bush, global warming, too much cafine, for example.
What the author conveniently overlooks is that one of the first school shooters, Luke Woodham at Pearl, Ms. High School, was stopped from continuing his slaughter by an assistant principal who went out to his car, retrieved his own pistol, and subdued the assailant with it. What the author also conveniently overlooks is that if someone is determined to turn their school into a shooting gallery, a simple rule against carrying a firearm onto campus will not be much of a deterent. Look how much weight the rules against firearms at Columbine H.S. stopped Klebold and Harris.
Once again they leave out the anti-depressant drugs these kids were prescribed by "therapists" The prescriptions were suppressed as they were deemed private and confidential.
>>Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.