Putting concealed guns on campus is sheer folly

Advertisement

Text size: small | medium | large

Gary Jacobsen
Published: March 13, 2008

Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Manassas, is best known for continually pushing narrow pro-religion and anti-abortion legislation in Richmond, much to the annoyance of others in the General Assembly. Now, however, Mr. Marshall is expanding his agenda: He wants law abiding college students and professors to be able to carry guns on campus so that they can have shoot-outs with gun-toting thugs who might be a threat to others.

This idea lacks merit. Here’s why:

The definition of “law abiding” is slippery. Persons in our society do not conveniently fall into categories of law-abiding or lawbreaker. Many violent felons have not yet been arrested and prosecuted and as a result, they blend in seamlessly with the rest of society. They can legally buy guns and they can get concealed-weapon permits if they wish. Mr. Marshall thinks these persons should be allowed to wander about college campuses with their guns, but most people — especially those with sons or daughters in college — would strongly disagree.

Second, if Mr. Marshall had actual experience with firearms (such as through military service), he would know that possession of a firearm by itself does not guarantee protection from someone who seeks to do harm to others. Guns in the hands of untrained owners (the usual case) are notoriously inaccurate at distances over 15 yards. A person firing such a weapon in a crowded classroom is as likely to hit a student as an armed intruder. The more other students join in the shooting, the greater the hazard becomes.

Third, even in the rare case where a handgun is carried by a person who is trained to be a good marksman, the hazard to others persists. The reason: thugs use the element of surprise to their advantage. That’s how they kill policemen. Thus, an intruder at a college is in a position to shoot or disarm anyone who attempts to interfere with his diabolical plans. Again, the threat to innocent bystanders is enormous.

Finally, firearms in the hands of students are a hazard to others because the weapons are not easily stored, transported or handled. Members of the armed forces, though trained in the use of firearms, are frequently victims of what are euphemistically called accidental discharges. The same will happen to college students who keep guns in dormitory rooms or who carry the weapons to frat parties, to athletic events and to other student activities. In his movies, Arnold Schwarzenegger brandished a variety of weapons with ease, but in real life things do not always work that way. Even Vice President Dick Cheney managed to shoot another person while hunting outdoors.

In sum, firearms, especially handguns, are inherently dangerous. They have no place on a college campus except in the hands of the campus police.

Well, can anything be done to improve security on our college campuses? Sure. To begin, the number of campus police officers should be increased, perhaps even doubled. Next, their level of training
must be improved.

Each campus police officer should be required to requalify annually with both pistols and rifles. Finally, each college should have an alert plan which will allow administrators to transmit text messages to all students immediately if there is any sort of danger on campus.

But allow students and professors to tote guns? No. That will only worsen the situation.

Gary Jacobsen is a pistol marksman and former college professor. He lives in Woodbridge.

Reader Reactions

Posted by ( phdee ) on March 18, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Advocator:  “I love to ride my horse and shoot my gun.  A cowboy’s work is never done…“

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( phdee ) on March 18, 2008 at 1:36 pm

pourshot, the 2nd amendment “shall not be infringed” does not refer to an individual’s alleged right to carry a weapon. Itsays the right of a person to own a weapon for use in a regulated militia shall not be infringed.  The amendment by today’s standards is obsolete.  It was passed in the country’s very early days when settler (actiually illegal immigrants) were killing Native Americans, fighting European countries, etc., and everyone when the British were coming would put down their plow, get their gun, and go fight. That militia need is how 2-bit colleges like VMI and the Citidel came to exist - a state militia. Once you could not lynch or shoot blacks inVa., there was no need for those instiutions.  No one carries their weapon today to serve in the military or National Guard - it’s all done federally. Sorry you can’t read the 2nd amendment correctly.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( Advocator ) on March 17, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Marshall’s plan is one of the smartest I’ve heard.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( Pourshot ) on March 17, 2008 at 1:53 pm

<laughing> - phdee - Looks like we will have to agree to disagree as I would have to ask you “What part of shall not be infringed don’t you understand?“

And no, I carry a gun for the same kind of reasons I have a fire escape plan, a fire extinguisher, and fire insurance.  It is called being prepared.  I have those items and yet I do not expect a fire. I have auto insurance, but do not expect to have an accident.  I have health insurance, but do not expect to get sick. I carry a gun, but I never expect to have to use it.  But in any event, thank you for questioning my manhood.  It gave me a good laugh on a very long day!  Oh, and if you ever want to get a Virginia or Utah CHP call me - 703-229-1712

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( phdee ) on March 17, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Pourshot, I support the DC lawyer’s stance ongun control in the District. Their stance, in so many words, says the right to bears arems is for the purpose of having a militia. The 2nd amendment is silent on anything else. Why do you need to carr5y a gun.  Gonna commit a crime? Or does it make you feel like a “man”?

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( Pourshot ) on March 17, 2008 at 11:09 am

to edwinking: Pro-life and pro-gun are not at odds with each other. (luke 22:36)

To Grant Gary Jacobson: OK, fine, 16 years.  So Now you have added to the information, but it still does not add to the credibility…. Sorry, but it changes my opinion not…

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( Grant Gary Jacobsen ) on March 17, 2008 at 10:26 am

For the benefit of the previous (anonymous) writer, I can tell him that former Marine Gary Jacobsen qualified as an “expert” pistol shot for 16 consecutive years.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( edwinking ) on March 17, 2008 at 9:53 am

There are many blessings in becoming old and wrinkled, not the least of which is not having to risk the shoot out at the OK coral while in college.How can a pro-lifer support such a measure? Is his pro-life talk only that and he doesn’t care if shortly after birth they are shot by gun nut?????

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( Pourshot ) on March 14, 2008 at 11:51 am

Yeah - sure - uh-huh - Yeah - sure - uh-huh…. Man, when will this anti-gun mantra change?  Every time anyone even *THINKS* of liberating gun owners of onerous laws you hear the same old tripe….Blood in the streets….it will be like the wild west out there…and it does NOT happen!  Time and time again these nay-sayers are shown to be wrong.  Do they ever stop?  No, they just move the anti-gun peg to the next issue and hang their hat on it and start spouting the same mantra.  I was a student at NOVA and because I liked the staff and the variety of courses I earned several degrees.  And guess what?  My gun never hurt anyone.  I appreciate the author is a “pistol marksman” as it really says nothing other then at one time or another he shot a handgun and even then, maybe only once. All I glean from his writing is that schools are these magic places where all the things that don’t happen outside will happen inside.  When was the last time you heard of a Virginian with a Permit to Carry a Concealed Handgun shooting wildly in a defensive situation and killing innocents?  This just leads me to believe that the writer is just like most of the anti-gunners out there say they support the second amendment, but from their actions I am not sure what that phrase means anymore.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Posted by ( phdee ) on March 14, 2008 at 2:25 am

Marshall’s plan is one of the dumbest I’ve heard.

Report Inappropriate Comment

Post a Comment

The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.


Tags relating to this article:

  • No tags are associated with this article.

Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:



Email This Print This AddThis Social Bookmark Button RSS Feed Add to My Yahoo!

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement