Op-Ed
Weapons on Campus: Concealing the Issue
February 27, 2008 - 1:00amI walk into Cascadilla Hall every day, and I don’t run into anyone who’ll care what’s in my bag. I dart past no metal detector up to my room, which I know is locked and hasn’t been searched by my RA. I feel secure in knowing that I can bring in whatever I want and nobody will know. I might have brought in something as innocuous as a book, or perhaps something a little less allowed by my housing contract, like a coffee maker.
It might even be a gun.
If we look around our “gun-free” learning environment, it becomes painfully obvious that the physical impediments for someone who wants to conceal a firearm are nonexistent. So long as I can procure the weapon, I’m allowed to roam as I please with a Desert Eagle .50 in my backpack and not worry about being searched or discovered, much less arrested.
Thankfully, I’m a law-abiding student and citizen whose practice of “civil disobedience” goes no further than occasionally speeding. But the possibilities are there and, frankly, they’re a bit terrifying. It may seem as though this is sheer paranoia, but in light of the recent events in Virginia and Illinois, anything is possible, and the (regulated) right for students to carry concealed firearms could help to diminish the effects of such horrible acts.
The first-glance response to this is that with everyone armed, the body count only goes up and violence and crime spread at alarming rates, because a bunch of lunatics with pretensions of being John Wayne start gunfights at Johnny O’s, as a Sun editor put it (as a side note, Johnny O’s isn’t the Cornell campus; technically, that could already happen). However, the facts behind concealed carry actually show that this is patently false.
Concealed carry’s opponents usually typify the practice as something that allows anyone who wishes to tote their firearm to do it without any sort of restriction. However, according to the laws of a certain state, before a concealed carry permit can be granted, an applicant (who must be over 21) has to pass a two-day intensive course. The first day is an eight-hour seminar on the statutory limits of concealed carry, so that weapons owners are knowledgeable and responsible; the second day is dedicated to a shooting examination, so that any bad shots are disqualified. In addition, background checks immediately bar anyone with a criminal record and seriously hurt the chances of someone with a history of mental illness, and if an instructor thinks that someone’s applying simply to fulfill a Bruce Willis fantasy, then he has full allowance to flat-out reject them. And this state, by the way, isn’t notoriously gun-tight like New York or Massachusetts — it’s actually Texas.
Others level the claim that it escalates otherwise harmless situations, like frat parties, into potentially lethal ones. There is some element of truth to this—after all, some people simply get violent while drunk, and putting them in possession of a firearm is just not smart. However, the application of common sense by gun users (who, as established, have to be proven rational and responsible) virtually erases this risk. People who understand the legal implications aren’t likely to put themselves in a situation where firearms and alcohol are likely to mix.
Plus, if history teaches us anything, it’s that guns aren’t necessary for people — particularly intoxicated people — to do real damage to one another. There are plenty of stories about bare-knuckle bar fights that lead to serious injury. In an instance that hits closer to home, think of the Poffenbarger stabbing. It wasn’t a revolver that sent the Union College student to the ER — it was a knife, which is far easier to obtain and conceal than a firearm. And before you say it, note that under a system in any way similar to Texas’, Poffenbarger’s age and history of mental instability would have barred him from ever having acquired a firearm.
One final point which has been used to rebut the value of concealed carry is that should, God forbid, a shooting break out, a situation where one student has a gun turns into one where multiple students have them, leading to crossfire casualties and confusion for the police when they arrive. This is, most certainly, a danger, and not by any means a negligible one. Ensuring that all firearm users are trained to be good shots is essential to mitigate this possibility—the natural tendency for most people to duck down during a shooting will also decrease this somewhat.
However, one has to consider the alternative possibility — with nobody there to attempt to check the rampage, the carnage is prolonged and the danger increases for all the bystanders. As for the roles of campus security and police in such a conflict, one has only to look at the events in both Virginia and Illinois to understand that the police, for all their hard work, can’t always react with necessary speed to end the violence.
Is concealed carry the ideal solution? Hardly. It would be infinitely preferable to prevent weapons from working their way onto campus, and to know that nobody’s going to try to kill anybody. But this isn’t an ideal world, and nothing can prove indubitably that someone won’t do something. Does this mean that every sorority sister should purchase a Glock and stuff it into her purse? Not by any means. I don’t think we all need to be, to quote the same Sun editorial, “armed to the teeth.” Shootouts don’t rank high on my list of worries. However, if somebody thinks they would feel just that much more secure if they were able to defend themselves, then it’s not Cornell’s place to interfere beyond the most basic regulations.
William P. Lane is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences and an editor of The Cornell Review. He can be contacted at wpl5@cornell.edu. Guest Room appears periodically.
"Weapons on Campus: Concealing the Issue," by William Lane
I found the title of this article to be misleading. It's about carrying concealed guns (read pistols) on campus.
Mr. Lane is right that there other ways to commit violence besides using guns. He's also right that one should be able to defend oneself. I disagree that carrying a gun is good for self-defense.
Using a gun is the easiest way to commit physical violence. All it takes is one finger to squeeze the trigger and the bullet does the rest, if it doesn't miss. Any other form of physical violence requires more effort, commitment, and time, time that allows for second thoughts about committing the violence.
If one is using a gun for self-defense, then it's likely that an assailant with a gun will have the initiative and will shoot as soon as the defender tries to use a gun. There are other forms of self-defense, such as the martial arts, that are more effective and safer than guns and allow for a proportionate response to violence. Proportionate response goes to ths legal issue of reasonable force. It's not reasonable force to shoot an unarmed assailant. It is reasonable force to subdue or scare off an assailant. Scaring off an unarmed assailant often works if the victim shows any capability for self-defense.
Armed assailants are often close enough to their intended victims that the victims can disarm them if they know how to do it. The Goshin Jutsu Kata of Judo and Aikido (see http://www.judoinfo.com/katagosh.htm) has nine defenses against armed attacks, three of them against someone with a gun. Secret Service agents have many more unarmed ways to subdue someone with a gun.
If an assailant with a pistol is more than ten feet from an intended victim, the victim can significantly reduce the odds of being shot just by running away.
Texas Statistics
Thank you for a well thought out article that avoids the typical knee-jerk response to concealed carry.
As a former resident of Ithaca (I grew up there) and now a resident of Texas I get tired of the argument that just because people are allowed to carry they will use the firearm. This is just not supported by fact.
To add to your information:
Texas DPS (the State Troopers here) maintains statistics on crime in Texas and the percentage of those crimes perpetrated by a concealed carry holder - the percentage for 2005 (the last year on record) was less than .4%.
(Viewable here: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates....)
Putting the 2nd FIRST!!
As a Jewess in the US, may I remind everyone that America wasn't won with a registered gun, and that criminals are stopped by FIREARMS, not by talk? That is why all REAL Americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!! (PS: I bet they won't DARE to print this letter!)
Re: John Randall '64 (BME
Re: John Randall '64 (BME '65), PhD '72 (not verified) on February 27, 2008 - 10:34am.
"Using a gun is the easiest way to commit physical violence. All it takes is one finger to squeeze the trigger and the bullet does the rest, if it doesn't miss. Any other form of physical violence requires more effort, commitment, and time, time that allows for second thoughts about committing the violence."
Exactly. It's the most efficient form of self-defense known to man. And if a criminal is already shooting, second thoughts are going to get you killed.
"If one is using a gun for self-defense, then it's likely that an assailant with a gun will have the initiative and will shoot as soon as the defender tries to use a gun."
Depends on a whole lot of factors. You seem to be considering only a "one-on-one, the crook already has his gun out and pointed at you" scenario. And many armed citizens have succesfully defended themselves with their own gun in such a situation.
"There are other forms of self-defense, such as the martial arts, that are more effective and safer than guns and allow for a proportionate response to violence."
Umm, didn't you just disprove this in the first statement above?
"Proportionate response goes to ths legal issue of reasonable force. It's not reasonable force to shoot an unarmed assailant. It is reasonable force to subdue or scare off an assailant. Scaring off an unarmed assailant often works if the victim shows any capability for self-defense."
Ah, but you said we were considering an assailant with a gun. In which case a gun of your own would be a reasonable, proportionate response. Even the Dalai Lama said this was true. Look it up.
And unarmed does not mean unable to inflict harm. As you subsequently state below...
"Armed assailants are often close enough to their intended victims that the victims can disarm them if they know how to do it. The Goshin Jutsu Kata of Judo and Aikido (see http://www.judoinfo.com/katagosh.htm) has nine defenses against armed attacks, three of them against someone with a gun. Secret Service agents have many more unarmed ways to subdue someone with a gun."
What about the disabled, ill, old, infirm, slow, smaller, weaker. The cliche is that you insist a 110 lb. victim should be forced to spar with a 225 lb. assailant. Not gonna work. (P.S. I'm a black belt.)
"If an assailant with a pistol is more than ten feet from an intended victim, the victim can significantly reduce the odds of being shot just by running away."
Actually, significantly increase their odds of being shot in the back, not hard to do from 10-40 ft.
You really need a few classes in logic, some real martial arts training (by the way, marksmanship is a martial art, "Yoga with a bang at the end"), and some experience being attacked by someone larger than you.
Peace be unto you.
guns don't save people
guns don't save people people save people.
Why don't you stop trying to put dangerous weapons on campus and be a little nicer to that person that eats alone and doesn't ever go out.
Scenario A:
Loner dude shoots three people with his concealed weapon.
People with concealed weapons shoot him.
4 people dead.
Scenario B:
The campus republicans invite the loner student out to lunch, even though he/she is not as cool as them.
Loner student is no longer a loner.
Scenario A must be false because loner student does not exist.
Concealed carry of handguns and self-defense
First, human beings have an inalienable right to effective self-defense. Any law that abridges that right is morally corrupt. This is not to say you need a bazooka to defend yourself, but gun bans prevent effective self-defense.
Second, no one can be sure when or where evil will come knocking. You can make bets, but assurance is impossible. Some time or other, it may be your turn. It is your choice whether to take an active part in your own rescue or to be a "good victim".
Third, gun bans are ignored by criminals, and do not preclude violence by other means. In the UK and other places, it appears that violent crime of all stripes increases when the law-abiding are unable to effectively defend themselves and there is an active criminal element. There is no other way to read the statistics.
Fourth, police in this country have no legal obligation to protect a particular person. This is just, because 99.99% of the time, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away. The NIU killer had done what he wanted and killed himself long before police arrived. The only resistance that could have mitigated in this tragedy would have to have been from someone in the room with the shooter. This is the norm. More law, gun bans, fervent hopes are not going to change this norm. Outsourcing jobs has a bad name. Why then would people opt to outsource their self-defense in light of consistent failure to produce good results?
Fifth, many prominent gun-control promoters have personal wealth or jobs in which they have or can acquire all the armed security they could possibly want. Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of NYC, has a detail of six officers, two in front, two on his flanks and two in back about everywhere he goes. Dianne Feinstein lives in a very wealthy, low-crime neighborhood. These people will not suffer if their gun ban proposals fail to reduce crime. This is egregious and elitist hyprocrisy, and if things are so safe, self-defense such an outmoded concept, then why do these people have their bodyguards?
In sum, gun control should be hitting your target and safe handling of a firearm, not making the work of criminals and homicidal lunatics safer.