About Us| Issues & Campaigns| Media| Get Involved| New to the Issue?| Donate

May 11, 2009

“The academic environment is sacred…and students need to feel safe.”

Here at Bullet Counter Points we like to highlight the exceptional work that everyday Americans are doing to prevent gun violence in their communities. Today we focus on a young man who is determined to keep America’s college campuses safe.

On April 16—the second anniversary of the Virginia Tech shooting tragedy—approximately 300 students staged a “walk-out” of their classes at the University of Texas to protest a bill in the state legislature that would allow students and faculty to carry concealed weapons on campus. The students made their way to the Texas Capitol building, where they chanted in protest and rang a bell 32 times for the victims lost at Virginia Tech.

At the head of the marching students was John Woods, a Campus Leader with the group Students for Gun Free Schools (SGFS) who organized the demonstration. John is currently a graduate student at the University of Texas, but was directly affected by the shootings at Virginia Tech. He was an undergraduate at the college on April 16, 2007, and lost his girlfriend and a number of other close friends that day.

“I didn't have a choice about becoming involved,” John says. “When the shootings happened at Virginia Tech, there was no purpose to them. The people I cared about—they didn't die defending their country or their beliefs. They died for nothing.”

“I needed for there to be a purpose,” he recalls, “so I started looking at prevention. Texas lawmakers, however, started using the Virginia Tech tragedy to market concealed carry on campus. ‘The death toll could have been reduced,’ they said. From talking to survivors, though, I knew this was extremely unlikely. I knew that what the authors of the concealed carry legislation were claiming was a Hollywood fantasy.”

John resolved to organize on campus to fight HB 1893, a bill sponsored by state Rep. Joe Driver (R-Garland), who claims that allowing students to carry concealed weapons on campus would help to prevent another Virginia Tech. John was already active in Student Government at the University of Texas and found out about the organization Students for Gun Free Schools. He quickly signed up as an SGFS Campus Leader.

“I organized the walk-out because I had been to a number of offices in the Capitol where they seemed completely shocked that students were against the bill,” says John. “We hoped the walk-out and rally would show them, in a very visible way, that students did not want guns on campus.” He is now organizing students to come back to the Capitol on May 11 when the Texas House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on HB 1893.

When John talks about “prevention,” he has something specific in mind: “I think gun laws in this country utterly lack common sense. Specifically, I think background checks [on gun purchasers] need to be universal.”

John also stresses that our nation’s college campuses are some of the safest places in the country, far safer than the communities that surround them. “When someone says guns on campus make faculty and students safer,” he says, “I tell them campuses are already about as safe as they can be. I tell them to talk to the survivors of the Virginia Tech shooting, who are experts on the issue. I also point out that the lack of guns on campus enables police to respond extraordinarily quickly to a crime, particularly in an active shooter situation.”

“I think it's important to note that guns are dangerous in certain circumstances. They're not allowed in football games or athletic events or in the gallery of the Texas Capitol. Why not? They can’t be carried by private citizens onto airplanes, even though the gun lobby would have us believe someone could stop a hijacking with one in the right place at the right time. Why not? And why is campus different?”

With the gun lobby pushing to force universities to allow guns on campus, John says now is the time for others to get involved. “To other students, I would say this: Get existing leaders on campus involved. Student government organizations are always looking for ways to get things done so they can say to students, ‘Look, we accomplish things for you.’ Hold them to it—show them that this issue is important. Recruit volunteers from among them. Or run for a position yourself if you have to.”

John also emphasizes public education about loopholes in our current gun laws. “Most people don't think about it,” he says. “When they do, they end up wanting common sense gun laws.” John makes reference to another bill in the Texas state legislature that would make Texas (for the first time) forward mental health information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to prevent deranged individuals from acquiring guns through licensed firearms dealers.

Ultimately, John sees irony in his current activism. “My precise stance on guns on campus is much like [National Rifle Association CEO] Wayne LaPierre's ten years ago,” he notes. “Schools should have absolutely zero tolerance for weapons of any kind, except in the hands of law enforcement. The academic environment is sacred, and more importantly, it's safe, and students need to feel safe.”

15 comments:

  1. Someone obviously forgot to tell this college student that he was incapable of using his gun to save lives. And that is very a good thing for him and the many others he saved on a fateful night:

    http://www.wsbtv.com/news/19365762/detail.html

    "A group of college students said they are lucky to be alive and they’re thanking the quick-thinking of one of their own. Police said a fellow student shot and killed one of two masked me who burst into an apartment.

    Apparently, his intent was to rape and murder us all,” said student Charles Bailey."

    Perhaps Mr. Woods should visit these people and explain to them that what happened in their house was just a "Hollywood Fantasy" and that not having a gun would have made them safer.....

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for your comment, thestaplegunkid9. A couple of points of clarification on the incident you linked to, however:

    1) It did not occur on a college campus. A study by the Department of Justice, found that 93% of violent crimes that victimize college students occur off campus. College campuses, with their gun-free policies, are some of the safest places in the nation - far safer than the communities that lie outside their boundaries.

    2) One of the female students in the apartment during the home invasion was shot "several times" in the crossfire between Charles Baily and the intruders. She is lucky to be alive and, thankfully, reports indicate she will fully recover from her injuries. In crowded college classrooms, such incidents of crossfire and friendly fire would be a significant concern.

    Finally, Charles Bailey's efforts to save his friends, while heroic, did nothing to prevent the home invasion from happening in the first place. How did Calvin Lavant and the second gunman acquire their firearms in the first place? This is a question that should be answered by College Park Police, and an issue which John Woods and other students in Students for Gun Free Schools are addressing head-on as part of their efforts to prevent shootings from happening in the first place. - CSGV

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you for publishing my comment. Some points I would like to address

    1) Indeed it did not take place on a college campus. But that is precisely the point. Armed self defense cannot take place on a college campus because our current policies make self defense with a firearm on college campuses impossible for lawful citizens (with the exception of Utah and few other places). So the key thing to consider is that if the situation had taken place on a college campus, it might have ended up as another mass shooting with double digit casualties. The main reason that it did not end up that way is because the incident took place outside the confines of a "gun free zone" where self defense is permissible.

    Also, again I must point out there is no evidence the few colleges that currently allow CCW are any less safe then the colleges that do not.

    2) Unfortunatly one of the students was injured in the shootout (though we do not know if it was the citizen or the criminal's bullets that did it). However she still avoided being raped or murdered, which is the likely outcome if the armed student had not intervened. Isn't being injured a better outcome then being raped and/or murdered (along with many of your friends)? I wouldn't be surprised if that student thinks so.

    Finally, while the student (it wasn't Charles Bailey, Bailey was a witness/victim, not the armed citizen) was unable to prevent the home invasion, he was able to prevent any of his friends from being robbed, raped, murdered, or some combination of them all. That's what lawful citizens can do when they are outside the confines of a "gun free zone".

    No one has ever said that allowing armed citizens will deter all crime or mass shootings (though it may deter some). The main point made by groups like the NRA and Students for CCW is that armed citizens can save lives when a crime or mass shooting occurs.

    That's what people like Mr. Woods fail to understand. A sound gun policy isn't just about keeping guns out of the wrong hands, but also keeping guns in the right hands. Sound gun policies should not only be about prevention. They should enable citizens to defend themselves when preventive measures fail (I would think even Mr. Woods would admit that no preventive measures are perfect), so instead of a situation the ends up like Virginia Tech, it will end up like College Park. It wasn't perfect, but it was much better then the alternative.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for your follow-up comment, thestaplegunkid9. Regarding your first point, we would stress again that college campuses—with their gun-free policies—are currently some of the safest places in America. A 2001 study by the U.S. Department of Education found that the overall homicide rate at postsecondary education institutions was 0.07 per 100,000 of enrollment in 1999. By comparison, the criminal homicide rate in the United States was 5.7 per 100,000 persons overall in 1999, and 14.1 per 100,000 for persons ages 17 to 29 (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, “The Incidence of Crime on the Campuses of U.S. Postsecondary Education Institutions,” p. 5). Other traditionally gun-free zones in America (i.e., National Parks, airports, day care centers, etc.) are also far safer than the “gun-full” communities outside their boundaries.

    The gun lobby’s rhetoric about gun-free zones being dangerous places that are targeted by killers simply doesn’t hold up when one looks at the data. Furthermore, in recent weeks, Americans have seen multiple mass shootings that occurred in “gun-full zones” (i.e., Alabama, Pittsburgh, Miramar Beach, etc.).

    Regarding the 11 colleges and universities (out of more than 4,300 colleges and universities in the United States) that allow concealed carry, none of them have published detailed data on gun-related crimes.

    As for whether the young woman in the incident you linked to would have been raped or murdered, we don’t know. She is certainly fortunate to be alive, however, after being caught in a crossfire between her friend and one of the perpetrators and shot several times. As noted before, such crossfires would be a particular concern in crowded college classrooms and campuses.

    And while we salute you for acknowledging that keeping guns out of the wrong hands is an important step in preventing shootings, the groups you cite—the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Students for Concealed Carry on Campus—support no measures to prevent criminals and other dangerous individuals from obtaining firearms. The NRA, in fact, actively opposes all such measures at the federal, state and local level. Perhaps you should contact them if you are sincere about prevention.

    We are also skeptical about your contention that arming more citizens will make communities (and college campuses) safer. The data simply doesn’t bear that out. As noted earlier, gun-free zones in America are currently the safest places in our country. Furthermore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention just released 2006 data on gun death per capita rates among the 50 states. Here are the results, highest rate of per capita gun death to lowest:

    Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Mississippi, Nevada, Arizona, Wyoming, Tennessee, Arkansas, New Mexico, South Carolina, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Missouri, North Carolina, Montana, Kentucky, Idaho, Georgia, Maryland, Indiana, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Kansas, Virginia, Colorado, Oregon, Texas, South Dakota, Ohio, California, Delaware, Vermont, Utah, Washington, Illinois, Maine, Nebraska, Wisconsin, North Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Hawaii

    What is clear from this list is that states with weak gun laws, high rates of gun ownership, and permissive concealed carry laws have higher rates of gun death than states with tough gun laws, low rates of gun ownership, and restrictive concealed carry laws.

    Finally, another recent tragedy from Georgia demonstrates how an armed, “law-abiding” citizen can suddenly become the perpetrator of a horrific crime. On April 25, University of Georgia professor George Zinkhan shot and killed three people in cold blood just outside the university’s campus. It is unclear at this point whether Zinkhan held a concealed carry permit, but there is nothing in his background that would have disqualified him from obtaining one. Presumably, just a short time ago, Zinkhan would have been one of the “armed citizens” helping make his campus safer.

    Nor is this an isolated incident. There have been other horrific mass shootings in recent years committed by concealed carry permit holders (e.g., Jason Hamilton in Moscow, Idaho; Randal Rushing in Scranton, Pennsylvania; and Richard Poplawski in Pittsburgh). Sadly, the screening process for concealed carry permit holders in “shall-issue” states is no more rigorous than for gun purchasers, and routinely approves people with extensive criminal histories and mental health issues.

    In our mind, Mr. Woods hasn’t failed to understand anything. He simply prefers that firearms on campus be in the hands of highly-trained law enforcement officers who are directly accountable to the public, students and faculty; as opposed to concealed carry permit holders who undergo little screening and are only required to have a single day-class in handgun safety and training. - CSGV

    ReplyDelete
  5. The fact remains that you currently have no evidence whatsoever that the 11 colleges which allow CCW are any less safe then those that do not. Until you get some, those schools are examples that pro-ccw policies do not conflict with school safety.

    The NRA and Students for CCW support policies to keep guns out of the wrong hands. What they do not support is policies that disarm lawful citizens while doing nothing to effect criminals. The "gun free zones" at schools and elsewhere are perfect examples of this, as only the lawful will obey them. Someone intending to commit a violent crime (regardless of whether or not they previously applied for a CCW permit) will have no compunction about violating the gun free rules, just as they have no regard for anyone's right to "feel safe" or be safe.

    Unfortunantly Mr. Woods and his followers have completely failed to take this into consideration. You say you prefer "that firearms on campus be in the hands of highly-trained law enforcement officers". It must be noted that prior to the Virginia Tech massacre, VT had (and still has) a highly trained and well armed police force. And yet they failed to prevent 32 deaths in April of 2007.

    Woods says "the lack of guns on campus enables police to respond extraordinarily quickly to a crime." Leaving aside the fact that he cites no study or evidence showing that pro-CCW policies hinder police response times, I think there might be some families of the 32 VT victims who do not feel the police response on campus was fast enough.

    This is not a criticism of the VT police. They acted based on the information they had at the time and did so with the best of intentions. But the fact remains that 32 people died despite their best efforts, showing that an effective response from a well trained police force isn't always enough to save lives. The police cannot be everywhere at once and a response time of even a few minutes can be too late. That's not the fault of the police. It's simply a fact of life.

    Even the superb response to the recent mass shooting in Carthage, NC by a single heroic policeman (who shot the killer and single handedly ended the spree) was not in time for the 7 victims who died that day.

    Contrast that with College Park, where the immediate response of an armed college student prevented anyone from being killed, other then an armed criminal.

    Regarding whether or not the woman injured in the college park shootout would have been raped and/or killed if the student had not intervened, the witnesses at the party certainly seemed to think so:

    “Apparently, his intent was to rape and murder us all,” said student Charles Bailey.

    Bailey said the gunmen started counting bullets. “The other guy asked how many (bullets) he had. He said he had enough,” said Bailey."

    I leave you to draw your own conclusion of their purpose for counting their bullets.

    Finally, it must be noted that while only a few days of training are required to get a CCW permit in most states, nothing prevents CCW holders from getting more training on their own time. There are many professional training courses available at shooting ranges and gun clubs for citizens across the country, and many professional shooting academies that offer citizens better training then what is required by a police academy (in regard to firearms). Such places include Front Sight, Lethal Force Institute, Gunsite, Tactical Defense Institute, and the Practical Shooting Academy. Also many CCW holders have prior military experience.

    If you are really concerned about CCW training, you should show you are serious about it by providing it yourself. The NRA is providing firearms training. Students for CCW does this as well. If you are so concerned about it, why don't you?

    If schools are really so concerned that CCW holders are not trained enough, they could simply require CCW holding students who want to carry on campus to attend a special class taught by campus law enforcement (students could pay the expenses) as the Harold school district in Texas does for teachers who carry at their school.

    ReplyDelete
  6. thestaplegunkid9, to reiterate, the 11 schools that allow concealed carry on their campuses have not released any data about incidents and offenses involving concealed carry permit holders. So there is no data available to support any position, including your position that “pro-CCW policies do not conflict with school safety.” We are eager to see that data here at the Coalition and hope it is released sometime in the near future.

    As for the NRA and Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC), as we stated before, these organizations support no policies or proposals whatsoever to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the mentally ill, or other dangerous individuals. SCCC is doing nothing about prevention—they are a single-issue organization that advocates only to force colleges and universities to allow concealed handguns on campuses. Furthermore, a look at The Wall and Discussion Board on their Facebook page reveals that their members vehemently oppose regulation of firearms in the United States. Regarding the NRA, we are not aware of a single piece of legislation that they are supporting right now at the federal, state, or local level that would prohibit dangerous individuals from gaining easy access to firearms. In fact, they are actively opposing bills at all levels that would further this goal (i.e., legislation to regulate private firearm sales which involve no background checks and are completely unmonitored by law enforcement; improve oversight of corrupt gun dealers who channel firearms to criminals and gun traffickers; enhance law enforcement and government officials’ ability to access crime gun trace data; etc., etc.).

    And again, despite your rhetoric about gun free zones, the data shows clearly that these areas are (by far) the safest places in the United States. This is a fact that you apparently don’t understand, or perhaps which you simply find inconvenient.

    As for Mr. Woods’ statement that “the lack of gun on campus enables police to respond extraordinarily quickly to a crime,” this was actually a subject addressed directly by the Virginia Tech Review Panel in its final report, where they wrote, “Of course if numerous people had been rushing around with handguns outside Norris Hall on the morning of April 16, the possibility of accidental or mistaken shootings would have increased significantly. The campus police said that the probability would have been high that anyone emerging from a classroom at Norris Hall holding a gun would have been shot ... Campus police chiefs in Virginia and many chief level officers in the New York City region who were interviewed voiced concern that as the number of weapons on campuses increase, sooner or later there would be accidents or assaults from people who are intoxicated or on drugs who either have a gun or interact with someone who does. They argued that having more guns on campus poses a risk of leading to a greater number of accidental and intentional shootings than it does in averting some of the relatively rare homicides.”

    These concerns have been echoed by the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA): “IACLEA is concerned that concealed carry laws have the potential to dramatically increase violence on college and university campuses that our Members are empowered to protect. Among the concerns with concealed carry laws or policies are: the potential for accidental discharge or misuse of firearms at on-campus or off-campus parties where large numbers of students are gathered or at student gatherings where alcohol or drugs are being consumed, as well as the potential for guns to be used as a means to settle disputes between or among students. There is also a real concern that campus police officers responding to a situation involving an active shooter may not be able to distinguish between the shooter and others with firearms.”

    As for the families of the Virginia Tech victims, none of them support your agenda to force colleges and universities to allow concealed handguns on campuses. In a letter to the Richmond Times-Dispatch on April 9, 2009, 50 of the survivors and family members of the victims from Virginia Tech called instead for “legislation to prevent the easy access to guns by the mentally ill, convicted felons, and others ineligible to purchase weapons.” They also stated, in no uncertain terms, “We expect more from our legislators and will demand our newly elected delegates and governor listen to the citizens of Virginia and close the gun show loophole.”

    Regarding the College Park incident, we think we can do better as a nation than encouraging shootouts between “good guys” and “bad guys” on our nation’s campuses (with innocents caught in the crossfire). Like the Virginia Tech families, we believe that sensible gun laws can prevent these incidents before they ever happen.

    You stated that a “few days of training” are required to get a CCW permit in most states. That’s not true. There’s not a single state in the country that requires more than a single day-class to get a permit to carry a concealed handgun. Some do not require any training at all (i.e., Pennsylvania, Georgia, etc.). Two do not even require residents to obtain a permit, much less undergo training (Alaska and Vermont).

    As for your suggestion that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence put resources into providing CCW training, the mission of this organization is to reduce gun death and injury in the United States. Given that: a) States with permissive concealed carry laws have the highest per capita gun death rates in our country; b) Public places that prohibit concealed weapons are currently the safest places in our country, and; c) The screening for CCW permit holders is so cursory that we are seeing permit holders repeatedly commit violent crimes in this country; your suggestion makes little sense.

    Your suggestion that schools provide CCW training makes even less sense. The mission of colleges and universities is to provide higher education to students and to promote the open creation and dissemination of different ideas. That goal would not be furthered by their hosting classes where students are instructed on how to disable and kill one another with handguns. - CSGV

    ReplyDelete
  7. @stopgunviolence, thank you for the time you've spent on both this article and on your thoughtful and considerate replies. I am continually impressed by your patience and dedication, and reading the comments on the article, I found myself impressed by your courtesy toward those who commented.

    Best,
    John Woods

    ReplyDelete
  8. The VT review panal's report didn't adress how CCW effected police response times. It just stated what would happen if anyone "emerged from a classroom with a gun" or had been "rushing around with handguns". That's not an issue because CCW holders know confronting the police with a gun in hand is foolish (every CCW class I've ever been too teaches that). All they would have to do is stay in one place with their weapon ready to defend themselves and those around them and drop their gun as soon as a police officer comes into visual range.

    The thing to remember is that it's not "friendly fire" from police or armed civilians that's responsible for the majority of deaths in any mass shooting, regardless of where it takes place. What causes the most deaths is someone on a shooting spree who encounters no resistance. That's what grounds like the NRA and students for CCW are trying to change. If you ever see a newspaper headline that reads "32 people die from friendly fire by armed citizens and police trying to defend themselves", then maybe you will have a point. Until then, you really should focus what is actually causing the deaths, I. E. a crazed killing who is shooting people without anything hindering his efforts.

    If your going to constantly insist that CCW holders don't have enough training, it's only natural to ask why you arn't doing anything to provide it. Complainig about an issue while making no contributions to it is what makes "little sense".

    As I mentioned before, the Harrold School district in Texas allows teachers to carry on campus after taking a training class from law enforcement. No such problems have arisen from this at all. The police who teach such classes havn't reported that they are teaching to "disable and kill". This is not about teaching people to "how to disable and kill", but how to protect and defend.

    And that's the core of the issue. The simple fact that learning self defense with a firearm and carrying it properly doesn't mean anyone is "encouraging shootouts". It's about encouraging self defense and protection in order to save lives before the police show up. As I said before, you cannot get around the fact that police cannot arrive at the scene of a shooting to prevent deaths in many cases, such as VT. The immediate response by someone who is already there is the best way to save lives, as the incident in College Park proved.

    Your equation of lawful self defense with "teaching to disable and kill" is on par with John Woods' comment that armed self defense is a "Hollywood Fantasy". It is not only wrong, it is also an astounding insult to anyone who has ever dropped a hammer in defense of their lives, friends, and families.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Because this may be a long post, I'll number it, and that way make it easy for you to respond to my comments.

    (1) "we would stress again that college campuses—with their gun-free policies—are currently some of the safest places in America."

    And yet, despite being generally safe, they are the scene of some of the most horrific crimes in American history. Just because someplace is "generally safe" doesn't mean that people shouldn't be able to defend themselves in the event of an incident. By comparison, the chance that my house is going to burn down is probably about zero, but I still have house insurance just in case. The chance of a mass murder walking into my classroom is equally slim, but I don't want to be caught with nothing but my textbooks and laptop if he does indeed walk in." It's preparation.

    (2) "Regarding the 11 colleges and universities (out of more than 4,300 colleges and universities in the United States) that allow concealed carry, none of them have published detailed data on gun-related crimes."

    While it isn't published, if you call the Chiefs of Police at the various campuses, they will confirm you you that there has been zero incidents of gun violence on these campuses by anyone who holds a concealed carry permit. Just because they don't "publish" this data doesn't mean you can't get the information. Perhaps you don't want to see the results that campuses with guns have no higher incidence of gun related incidents than those that ban guns.

    (3) "As for whether the young woman in the incident you linked to would have been raped or murdered, we don’t know. She is certainly fortunate to be alive, however, after being caught in a crossfire between her friend and one of the perpetrators and shot several times. As noted before, such crossfires would be a particular concern in crowded college classrooms and campuses."

    Are you suggesting that crossfires are a worse alternative than the systematic execution of a classroom worth of students like the one that occurred at VT? I'll take a crossfire over no defense any day. Further, the "crossfire" might actually turn the shooters attention to one single target, allowing others to escape.

    (4) "the groups you cite—the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Students for Concealed Carry on Campus—support no measures to prevent criminals and other dangerous individuals from obtaining firearms. The NRA, in fact, actively opposes all such measures at the federal, state and local level."

    Lest you remember, the NRA was the group that actively pursued the NICS background check system. They were a major part of enacting that system into law.

    Further, SCCC supports its goal of arming law-abiding students on campus for their defense. It does not advocate against other gun control measures or advocate for other pro-gun measures. While there are many things that can be done to prevent these massacres, SCCC has chosen it's area that it wishes to advocate for that it believes will be the most effective in saving people. This mirrors what you said in a previous post that while you seem to acknowledge that much more training would be a great idea, you are unwilling to fund it because you believe there are better alternatives. SCCC believes the same, and the alternative they advocate for is the arming of students on campus.

    (5) "Finally, another recent tragedy from Georgia demonstrates how an armed, “law-abiding” citizen can suddenly become the perpetrator of a horrific crime."

    This is like saying, because a normally law abiding citizen could drive drunk and kill someone, we should ban cars or not let people drive them. You don't make policy restricting the rights of the law abiding because a ever so small percentage of the law-abiding may become a criminal. You leave the rights of the law abiding in tact, especially in this arena, to defend against those of us who decide that the law isn't worth following. You could outright ban guns, and if a normally law abiding citizen wanted to become criminal and murder someone, they will get it done. The only question is will the person(s) being attacked be able to stop the murderer? As the home invasion in the above posts showed, people with guns can stop this madness. I'll bet if you asked the girl who was shot whether if she could do the incident all over again whether she would want a gun in the hands of her friend, her unequivocal answer would be "yes" because it probably saved her from being raped and killed.

    (6) "Sadly, the screening process for concealed carry permit holders in “shall-issue” states is no more rigorous than for gun purchasers, and routinely approves people with extensive criminal histories and mental health issues."

    Then fix the system, don't scrap it because it doesn't work in a small minority of cases. I know probably 100 people with CCW permits, and all of them have picture perfect criminal records, seem pretty clear headed to me, and train regularly at the range. In a critical situation, I would want to stand next to any of these people with a gun to defend me.

    (7) "He simply prefers that firearms on campus be in the hands of highly-trained law enforcement officers who are directly accountable to the public"

    Could you please define "directly accountable." Last I checked police have qualified immunity, and if they don't response fast enough, make a bad decision, etc, they aren't held accountable. People can die, and they aren't responsible. The Supreme Court has even held that the police are not responsible for our individual safety. So who is?

    (8)"As for Mr. Woods’ statement that “the lack of gun on campus enables police to respond extraordinarily quickly to a crime,” this was actually a subject addressed directly by the Virginia Tech Review Panel in its final report, where they wrote, “Of course if numerous people had been rushing around with handguns outside Norris Hall on the morning of April 16, the possibility of accidental or mistaken shootings would have increased significantly. "

    No evidence of this whatsoever in the report. How many times do you hear about armed citizens not on college campuses being shot by police officers because they thought they were the bad guy. Searching google and elsewhere, I find zero. I haven't ever heard of it either. Why? The FBI reports that the average defensive gunfight lasts 10 seconds. 10 seconds. No police force in the world is going to arrive that quick. No campus shooting in recent memory has ever ended with the police shooting the attacker. Most of the time the attacker shoots himself anytime he thinks a gun might be coming for him. I'd rather the attacker think that gun is coming in 5 seconds, than 5 minutes.

    (9) " The campus police said that the probability would have been high that anyone emerging from a classroom at Norris Hall holding a gun would have been shot"

    Then their training was deficient. Police are supposedly "trained" to identify friend from foe. If not, they are no better, in fact they may be worse, than an armed citizen.

    (10) " sooner or later there would be accidents or assaults from people who are intoxicated or on drugs who either have a gun or interact with someone who does. They argued that having more guns on campus poses a risk of leading to a greater number of accidental and intentional shootings than it does in averting some of the relatively rare homicides.” "

    CCW statistics don't show this for the rest of the country that allows CCW, so it's not likely to change just because these same people cross onto campus. Bad logic.

    (11) "“IACLEA is concerned that concealed carry laws have the potential to dramatically increase violence on college and university campuses that our Members are empowered to protect. Among the concerns with concealed carry laws or policies are: the potential for accidental discharge or misuse of firearms at on-campus or off-campus parties where large numbers of students are gathered or at student gatherings where alcohol or drugs are being consumed, as well as the potential for guns to be used as a means to settle disputes between or among students."

    Most parties and disputes happen off campus already, where students can already carry guns, and this isn't happening. Bad logic.

    (12) "Like the Virginia Tech families, we believe that sensible gun laws can prevent these incidents before they ever happen."

    History shows that even a total gun ban will not stop a killer from getting a gun if he wants it bad enough. A no gun policy surely won't stop, and hasn't stopped, a killer. Why take away a persons ability to defend themselves?

    (13) "Your suggestion that schools provide CCW training makes even less sense. The mission of colleges and universities is to provide higher education to students and to promote the open creation and dissemination of different ideas. That goal would not be furthered by their hosting classes where students are instructed on how to disable and kill one another with handguns"

    Students can't learn if they are dead. Whatever the Mission of VT was, there are 32 students that will never their goals or mission. A student with a gun could have ensured that some of them could have that chance.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks for your follow-up comment, thestaplegunkid9. We’re a bit unsure as to what qualifies you to speak for the potential behavior of each and every concealed carry permit holder in this country, particularly in situations as challenging and stressful (even for highly trained law enforcement officers) as active shooter scenarios. As we pointed out before, no state in the country requires more than a single-day class in training for CCW permit holders, and several require no training whatsoever. Furthermore, in the last year alone, scores of incidents have been documented involving concealed carry permit holders acting irresponsibly and criminally with their handguns. The concerns of the Virginia Tech Review Panel, the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators, and campus law enforcement officials across the country that concealed carry permit holders could disrupt and complicate organized and professional responses to active shooter situations are well placed.

    Your comments about friendly fire are also unpersuasive given that you yourself cited an incident which involved an innocent young woman who was caught in a crossfire between an “armed citizen” and a perpetrator and shot several times. She’s lucky to be alive today. Concerns about friendly fire and collateral damage on crowded college campuses are also well placed, particularly given the lack of training required of concealed carry permit holders in this country and the minimal screening they undergo to get their permits.

    We thought we made it perfectly clear why the Coalition does not advocate resources to provide CCW training in our previous comment, but we are happy to restate. The mission of our organization is to reduce gun death and injury in the United States. Given that: a) States with permissive concealed carry laws have the highest per capita gun death rates in our country; b) Public places that prohibit concealed weapons are currently the safest places in our country (with the lowest violent crime and homicide rates), and; c) The screening for CCW permit holders is so cursory that we are seeing permit holders repeatedly commit violent crimes in this country; it makes no sense whatsoever for the Coalition to engage in such a pursuit. Nor would it be supported by our organizational or individual members, who are deeply concerned about what they are seeing in their communities every day: criminals, the mentally ill, and other dangerous individuals gaining easy access to firearms.

    That said, that doesn’t mean we don’t work on the issue. We recently joined family members from the Virginia Tech tragedy and violence prevention groups in the Commonwealth in opposing a piece of legislation by Sen. Ken Cuccinelli (R-Fairfax) that will now allow concealed carry permit holders in Virginia to satisfy the training requirement for their permits by taking a 1-hour online course (20 multiple choice questions) that involves no in-person or range training whatsoever.

    Your assertion that a single incident you cited that occurred in College Park “proves” that “the immediate response by [a gun owner] who is already there is the best way to save lives,” is unconvincing, particularly given that an innocent young woman was caught in a crossfire in that incident and shot several times (law enforcement professionals are specifically trained to avoid collateral damage).

    Both sides can cite individual incidents. I cited the case of George Zinkhan, a University of Georgia professor who recently shot and killed three people in cold blood with two handguns not far from that campus. I can also cite an incident from last October where a Ball State student was charged with multiple felonies after being involved in the shootings of three young people in an apartment off campus, two of them fellow Ball State students.

    The bottom line is that there have been more than 75 mass shootings in the United States so far this year, and not a single one occurred on a college campus. Meanwhile, it has already been confirmed that several of these mass shootings were committed by concealed carry permits holders, including Michael McLendon, who killed ten and wounded six in Alabama; Neo-Nazi Richard Poplawski, who killed three police officers and wounded one in Pittsburgh; and Frank Garcia, who killed four and wounded one in a shooting rampage in upstate New York.

    Finally, we stand by our criticism of your proposal to host concealed carry handgun training courses on school property. It would be an absolute betrayal of the mission of our nation’s colleges and universities for them to sponsor courses where students prepare to shoot, kill and disable one another with handguns. - CSGV

    ReplyDelete
  11. It seems like you are trying to create a catch-22. If someone doesn't get CCW training, then they are dangerously unqualified. If they do, then then you denounce them for learning to "disable and kill".

    The Harrold School district doesn't seem to think that allowing teachers to take a law enforcement training class in order to carry on school grounds violates their school's mission. Also, firearms training in college classes isn't unheard of. The first time I ever touched a handgun was in a college class (An open enrollment college police academy at Hocking College). That's also where I got my CCW permit from (the training there meets and exceeds state CCW requirements). While the program was for people aspiring to get careers in law enforcement, anyone who met the requirements for owning a firearm could enroll in it. Nobody in that place seemed to have a problem or claim the school was teaching to "disable and kill".

    48 states allow some form of concealed carry. That includes all of the top ten states you listed with the lowest rates of gun death. While a handful of CCW holders have commited crimes or acted irresponsibly, they do not represent the vast majority. A handful of cops have done so as well, yet I do not hear you clamoring to disarm the police.

    The evidence clearly shows most CCW holders are responsible. Out of over 1,480,704 permits issued in the state of Florida since 1990, only 4,600 have been revoked for any reason, and only 166 of the revocations were for firearms related incidents.

    http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

    North Carolina tells a similar story: Only 727 out of 263,102 permits were revoked from 1995-2004.

    http://sbi2.jus.state.nc.us/crp/public/other/conceal/Sept302004stats.pdf

    The organizations out there who are working to ensure CCW holders are properly trained in both the use of firearms and law are groups like the NRA and Students for CCW. If you are not going to do anything to help CCW holders get the training they need, and in fact denounce the notion that certain places could provide it, then your criticism of CCW training will always ring hollow.

    In regard to the injured woman in the College Park shooting, again I find it highly odd that you consider one injury to be a worse fate than multiple deaths. We don't even know if it was really a case of "friendly fire" since it could have been only the criminal's bullets that hit the victim, but even if it was, the fact still remains that she still owes her life to the armed citizen who intervened. Is giving a little credit to him for the many lives he saved really too much to expect from you guys? 10 lives were saved with no deaths other then a violent armed criminal. Yet all you can focus on is the one unfortunant injury of someone who in all likelyhood managed to escape a fate far worse.

    Yes police are trained to avoid friendly fire, but their training does not always prevent them from doing so. The day you use that as a reason to advocate disarming the police is the day it can be a valid argument against CCW holders as well. Either way, what is clear is that nearly all the deaths in mass shootings come from a crazed killer mowing down people without any resistance, not "friendly fire". Thus it would seem changing those conditions should be given the highest priority.

    In regard to the people who carried out mass shootings and had CCW permits, I see nothing that would have prevented them from commiting their crimes if they didn't have them. The idea that people willing to commit mass murder would be concerned with violating state CCW laws seems highly doubtful. A CCW permit isn't a magic talisman that grants special gun wielding powers. It just effects the legal status of carrying a gun. An armed person planning a murder would not be effected by having or not having a CCW permit in any way.

    Finally, it must be noted that many police organizations support CCW. In my state (Ohio), the Buckeye Sheriff's association came out in support of CCW even before it was legalized in 2004:

    http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/808

    "Sheriff Ron Nichols said the Buckeye Sheriff's Association has come out in support of the law if wording about screening and training can be properly placed in the text.

    "It always has been one of our constitutional rights to let law-abiding citizens to protect themselves," he said. "With proper training and screening the law can be supported."

    Recently, the Illinois Sheriff's association issued a statement of support for legalizing CCW in their state:

    http://www.ammoland.com/2009/02/06/illinois-sheriffs-support-concealed-carry-law/

    “The ISA has been neutral on this issue for years but the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and the feedback and the experience from the other states has turned that tide. Out of 79 sheriffs responding to our survey, 90% of those sheriffs support concealed carry with the right type of restrictions, training and scrutiny."

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thanks for your comment, Dashman. Many of the points you raise were previously brought up by thestaplegunkid9 in this thread and have been addressed. We will respond to those which haven’t been discussed already.

    You stated that, “if you call the Chiefs of Police at the [11 colleges/universities that allow concealed carry on campus], they will confirm you you that there has been zero incidents of gun violence on these campuses by anyone who holds a concealed carry permit.” This leads us to believe that you have personally called these chiefs. Could you share the names of the chiefs you spoke to, with the dates that you spoke to them? Also, do you have notes of those conversations with the specific information they shared with you?

    Your assertion that the National Rifle Association (NRA) was a “major part” of enacting the background check system for gun purchasers into law has no basis in fact. The “Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act” (Brady Law) was originally introduced in 1987 and the NRA immediately mobilized against it, spending millions of dollars in an unsuccessful lobbying campaign to defeat the bill. The instant check requirement was introduced as a poison pill amendment by the NRA in 1991. The organization knew full well that few states at the time had computerized or centralized criminal records and the amendment was criticized by Congress’ Office of Technology Assessment as totally impractical (and essentially impossible to implement). When the NRA’s poison pill amendment was defeated in the Senate, the NRA backed off, and subsequent versions of the amendment gave authorities five years to stand up the instant check system.

    The NRA’s comment after the legislation became law? In American Rifleman magazine, the NRA stated, “When Bill Clinton signed the Brady bill into law on November 30, [1993] a drop of blood dripped from the finger of the sovereign American citizen …. “The executioner’s tool is the Brady bill—now the Brady law … [T]hey’ll go house to house, kicking in the law-abiding gun owners’ doors…”

    The NRA then went to the courts, funding lawsuits in nine different states that sought to have the Brady Law struck down as unconstitutional. The NRA argued that states could not be compelled to submit records to the federal background check system. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court agreed with that principle, but rejected the NRA’s argument that “the whole [Brady Law] statute must be voided.” In large part because of the NRA’s lawsuits, millions of records are missing today from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System that otherwise would be stopping dangerous individuals from buying guns.

    Full citations for all of the information above can be found in the Brady Campaign’s report, “The NRA: A Criminal’s Best Friend.”

    As we stated previously, the NRA has acted for years to weaken America’s gun laws and inhibit law enforcement oversight of the gun industry. They are supporting no measures whatsoever at the federal, state or local level to prohibit criminals and other prohibited purchasers from gaining easy access to firearms.

    Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC), likewise, has taken no action to support measures that would prevent dangerous individuals from acquiring firearms. It would not cost them a penny to publicly support reforms that have already been proposed at the local, state and federal level. Students for Gun Free Schools (SGFS), in contrast, supports a wide range of measures to prevent future mass shootings on college campuses despite raising no money. The reason for SCCC’s position is obvious when one looks at The Wall and Discussion Board on their Facebook page. Their members vehemently oppose all gun control regulation, however modest.

    Finally, regarding your assertion that police aren’t accountable for protecting the public, that is not the case. The majority opinion by Justice Scalia in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzalez found that state law did not entitle the holder of a restraining order to any specific mandatory action by the police. The restraining order in that case simply provided grounds for arresting the subject of the order. Justice Scalia ruled that the specific action to be taken in such a case should be left up to the discretion of the police. And he added, “Although the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 (the original source of §1983), did not create a system by which police departments are generally held financially accountable for crimes that better policing might have prevented, the people of Colorado are free to craft such a system under state law. Cf. DeShaney, 489 U. S., at 203.”

    Another oft-cited case by gun rights activists is Warren v. District of Columbia. But that opinion held that “Public officials at all levels remain accountable to the public and the public maintains elaborate mechanisms to enforce its rights—both formally in the courts and less formally through internal disciplinary proceedings.” In explaining its reasoning, the court stated that, “An enormous amount of public time and money would be consumed in litigation of private claims rather than in bettering the inadequate service which draws the complaints.”

    Finally, we shouldn’t forget that police forces are accountable to elected officials who can be voted in—or out—of office by the public depending on their performance in providing for public safety. - CSGV

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thanks for your follow-up comment, thestaplegunkid9. As we’ve made clear in this thread, our concerns about concealed carry are two-fold.

    Number one, the screening process for permit holders—as for gun purchasers—is minimal in most states. This year has seen one incident after another involving concealed carry permit holders who acted irresponsibly and criminally with their handguns. This constitutes more than a “handful” of individuals. There have already been three confirmed mass shootings in 2009 committed by concealed carry permit holders as well as the recent killing of two policemen by a deranged Florida CCW holder, Joshua Cartwright. Confirmation is still waiting in several other incidents, as the National Rifle Association (NRA) has restricted public access to information about permit holders in several of the states concerned.

    When clearly deranged individuals are acquiring concealed carry permits and retaining them despite having backgrounds that involve criminality, mental illness and violent behavior, the question naturally arises if state approval and revocation procedures are functioning properly. An investigation in Tennessee recently revealed that 200 hundred state residents held permits to carry concealed handguns despite having active restraining orders against them. Another investigation in Florida revealed that the state’s permit holders included more than 1,400 people who pleaded guilty or no contest to felonies, 216 people with outstanding warrants, 128 people with active domestic violence injunctions against them, and six registered sex offenders.

    State legislators’ response in both cases was not to improve the screening process for applicants to ensure public safety, but to pass NRA-drafted legislation that effectively prevents future public, independent audits of concealed carry permit holder lists. The NRA has done absolutely nothing to strengthen the screening procedures for permit applicants in any state.

    Secondly, we are concerned that little or no training is required for concealed carry permit holders. The issue is not one of availability of training. The training is available. The issue is that there is not a permit holder in the country who is required to have more than a single day-class in training and many states require no training at all. Meanwhile, the NRA has worked to weaken training requirements for permit applicants even further.

    State rankings by gun death per capita are telling. States with the highest rates of gun death are typically “shall-issue” states with menial screening for applicants and limited training requirements. The states with the lowest gun death rates are typically “may-issue” states that conduct far more extensive background investigations (and not just computer checks) on applicants and which permit far fewer of them—and only for good reason (i.e., those with unique security requirements). These states put the safety of the public first and make sure privilege is carefully balanced with responsibility. Our country would see far fewer shootings if other states followed their lead. - CSGV

    ReplyDelete
  14. What is clear is that the permit holders who commit crimes DO constitute a handful of individuals, no more representative of all CCW holders then the handful of cops who commit misconduct are representative of all law enforcement.

    Again, look at the data. In Florida, out of over 1.4 million permit holders, only 166 have been revoked for firearms related incidents. Just 166 out of over 1.4 million in a span of 18 years (the data goes back to 1990)! Try finding any other group with a track record that impressive.

    My own state has similar data. In the year 2008, Ohio had over 33,000 permits issued and over 31,000 renewed, with just 157 permit revocations for any reason!

    http://www.ag.state.oh.us/le/prevention/concealcarry/docs/08_cc_annual_rpt.pdf

    I've looked at the data in state after state, and so far they all share this common trait. If you can point to any state with a high percentage of revocations compared to permits issued, please let me know.

    Second of all, while you love to point out crimes by CCW holders, you neglect the fact that CCW holders more commonly use their weapons for lawful self defense. The incident I mentioned is far from the only one. The reports of others are out there, even if you refuse to look at them:

    Akron Pizza shop owner shoots armed robber:

    http://www.wikio.com/video/985434

    Manager at Georgia taco joint with anti-gun policy fights off armed robber:

    http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m4d21-Restaurant-with-antigun-policy-saved-by-a-gun

    Florida armed woman fights off carjacker:

    http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local/story/Tampa-woman-stops-armed-carjacker-with-her-own-gun/lzk5OlbYpkC5occGcyQP_w.cspx

    For more information, look at this website:

    http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

    As for Tennessee, the reason data on CCW holders is being subject to restrictions was in response to the media's decision to publish a detailed list of ALL ccw permit holders, including their vital information (addresses and birth dates were removed only after public outcry). That list included corrections officers, probation officers, former police officers, and domestic violence victims. Clearly, the Appeal's decision to publish a complete list of all permit holders rather then just those who should not have them was irresponsible and dangerous. That is why the information must be restricted. Sadly, Tennessee is not the only state with a media all too willing to endanger lives by publishing such data, which is why laws have been considered in other states.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/us/02appeal.html

    As for the NRA, if they were not interested in getting permit holders trained, they would not be committing such a huge amount of resources into providing the training. The fact that they are proves their commitment to ensuring every citizen can get the training they need. It is only available because the NRA and other pro gun groups have put so much effort into providing it.

    Finally, some states with low levels of crime and gun death have "Shall-issue" permit laws, such as Minnesota, witch ranked #8 on your list of lowest gun deaths. Furthermore, "shall issue" is more in accordance with democratic ideals, as it involves elected officials setting the criteria for permit requirements and law enforcement implementing and enforcing them. In contrast, "May issue" gives law enforcement broad personal descretion, which can be deviod of any uniform standards. Such issues recently led to a lawsuit in California:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/track/rss/blogs/2009/05/06/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4996598.shtml?CMP=OTC-RSSFeed&source=RSS&attr=PoliticalHotsheet_4996598

    The case "presents a very simple legal issue: people have the right to bear arms," Alan Gura, a Virginia attorney representing the plaintiffs, told CBSNews.com on Wednesday. "The state is able to regulate that right, but it cannot arbitrarily deny the right to bear arms based on the whims of local officials. The current law has absolutely no standards to it, and some local officials regrettably abuse their discretion. They decide self-defense is not a valid reason to deny the gun carry permit."

    ReplyDelete
  15. thestaplegunkid9, as stated before, there are far more than a handful of incidents every year involving irresponsible and criminal activity by concealed carry permit holders. In less than five months this year, three confirmed mass shootings have already been committed by concealed carry permit holders (Richard Poplawski killed three police officers in Pittsburgh, Michael McLendon killed ten in Alabama, and Frank Garcia killed four in upstate New York). We are still awaiting information on whether other mass shooters, such as University of Georgia professor George Zinkhan, possessed concealed carry permits. This information is difficult to come by because of National Rifle Association (NRA)-drafted laws passed in many states which prohibit public access to concealed carry permit holders lists.

    In addition, Joshua Cartwright, a concealed carry permit holder in the Florida panhandle, recently shot and killed two police officers who were trying to arrest him for domestic battery. Two more recent incidents involve concealed carry permit training course instructors. One instructor recently shot a student in the face during a class. Another is accused of murdering his wife and shot at police when they responded to a 911 call.

    That’s just a selection of disturbing incidents that we’ve seen so far in 2009. Last year, the Brady Campaign cataloged more than 50 criminal incidents involving concealed carry permit holders. And this is just what was available through media reports. The NRA’s secrecy laws make a proper national audit of concealed carry permit lists impossible. When such audits have been conducted at the state level, such as in Florida and Tennessee, they have revealed that criminals, domestic abusers and those with mental health issues hold permits. Had these states acted to revoke these permits, the independent audits in Tennessee and Florida would have had nothing to report. That these two states have taken no action since that time to assure the public that these mistakes have been corrected, and that permit holder lists will be properly audited in the future, is deeply troubling.

    Given the dangerous individuals who have been found to hold concealed carry permits, and the mass shootings and criminal actions that are being committed by concealed carry permit holders on a regular basis in our country, the public has every right to see data on permit holders and know who in their neighborhood possesses a permit. Freedom of Information is a basic principle on which our democracy rests, and the evidence clearly indicates that independent audits of concealed carry permit holder lists are needed. Furthermore, the NRA has not produced a single example of a concealed carry permit holder who has either been threatened or harmed by the publication of this information. When it suits their purposes, in fact, the NRA tell us again and again that a criminal knowing a victim is armed is a clear deterrent (such as in the argument about gun free vs. gun full zones).

    Regarding your assertion that the NRA spends a “huge amount of resources” providing training for firearm owners, we are curious what figure you are referring to; and what your source is. The NRA has certainly spent significant resources opposing any and all efforts to make safety training mandatory for gun purchasers and to enhance training requirements for concealed carry permit holders. In recent months, the NRA has lobbied to weaken training requirements for concealed carry permit holders, such as in Virginia.

    This is a recurring theme among gun lobby organizations—arguing aggressively for the expansion of gun rights while fighting all attempts to guarantee that gun owners are properly vetted and accountable for their behavior.

    As for the California lawsuit, law enforcement officials who are erring on the side of public safety in issuing concealed carry permits should be praised, not attacked, particularly in light of the disturbing murders and other criminal incidents described above. It is also odd that Alan Gura, who argued the District of Columbia v. Heller case before the Supreme Court, is not familiar with the decision’s second holding in the majority opinion drafted by Justice Scalia (p. 2):

    “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” - CSGV

    ReplyDelete