Abstract
A number of states in the US have adopted the Conceal and carry weapon policy in their legislations and have allowed the carrying of concealed weapons in the public. However, the debate on whether to allow the same in campuses and universities have elicited various reactions from students, the general public, law enforcement authorities and experts. This paper looks at the two sides of the debate in the conceal and carry weapons policy in campuses and universities, compares the facts and figures from both sides and takes a position on the issue. After weighing the benefits of the Conceal and carry policy against some of its demerits, which can be mitigated, the Conceal and carry policy is evidently good for campuses and colleges in the US, it will reduce the rate of crime and also enhance self-protection amongst the students. The demerits cited by those against the policy can be handled are measures to correct them put in place, therefore, these demerits should not be used to abolish the adoption of Conceal and carry policy in universities and campuses.
The Conceal and carry weapons policy regulates carrying of weapons in the public by one or in their close proximity but concealing them. The Conceal and carry weapons debate for campus students has dominated the open parlance for quite a long time with different people arguing for or against it citing various reasons for their stand. Today, various states that didn’t allow Conceal and carry weapons in campuses are considering legislations to allow it after the infamous Virginia Tech shooting in 2007. However, those against the Conceal and carry policy have used the same incident to argue against the policy saying that it calls for more restrictions to keep firearms off campuses as possible.
In the year 2013, 19 states in the US considered legislations to allow Conceal and carry in campuses and colleges. The number of states that actually introduced this policy in its collages and campuses in 2014 was 14 (Rasmussen & Johnson 2008). These legislations however vary in their applications, for example in 2013, both Kansas and Arkansas adopted bills to regulate Conceal and carry weapons; however, the Kansas one generally allowed Conceal and carry while the Arkansas one only gave such an allowance to faculty. The Kansas legislation too had a provision that allowed universities and colleges to prohibit weapons only in building that were considered to have adequate security measures (Rasmussen & Johnson 2008). The two laws also give authority to such institutions’ governing boards to regulate Conceal and carry.
The Arkansas legislation for example gives authority for faculty to carry concealed weapons, however, this also depends on the existence of such an authorization by governing bodies of such an institution. Governing boards are also allowed, through such bills, to be exempted from immediate application of such laws for a period of 4 years. In 2015, Texas joined the list of states that allowed, through legislation, the Conceal and carry policy in universities and colleges. On the other side of it, the Virginia Tech shooting has seen some states attempt to tighten their firearms policies through bills. In 2013, none of such bills were passed into laws in the five states where such attempts were made (Rasmussen & Johnson 2008).
Conceal and carry laws in universities and colleges in different states.
Although all 50 states in the US allow people to carry concealed weapons upon meeting the stipulated requirements, there are 19 states that completely ban Conceal and carry amongst colleges and universities. These states includes: North and South Carolina, New York, North Dakota, New Mexico, Wyoming, Georgia, Nebraska, Michigan, California, New Jersey, Missouri, Nevada, Tennessee, Ohio, Massachusetts, Florida, Illinois and Louisiana (Miller, 2011). Other states’ legislations, however, rests such decisions to ban or allow Conceal and carry with the institutions’ governing bodies. The 23 states that gives such authority to institutions include; Alabama, Minnesota, South Dakota, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Arkansas, Maryland, Maine, Delaware, Iowa, Washington, Vermont, Indiana, Alaska, Pennsylvania, Montana, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Hawaii, Arizona, Virginia, Rhode Islands and Connecticut (Miller, 2011).
The states of Wisconsin, Colorado, Texas, Kansas, Oregon, Mississippi, Idaho & Utah have allowed the carrying of concealed weapons amongst students in public postsecondary universities and colleges. Utah specifically has named public colleges and universities as public institution, meaning they did not have any authority to prohibit or ban concealed weapons amongst students. Wisconsin’s legislation on Conceal and carry provides that universities and colleges must allow into their grounds, Conceal and carry permitted weapon holders. Campuses are, however, allowed to prohibit entrance into buildings after clear signs at such entrances that prohibits weapons into the building. A legislation passed in Mississippi in 2011, however, only allow Conceal and carry for those who have taken a voluntary training on safe use and handling of guns and such course having been undertaken by a certified trainer (Rasmussen & Johnson 2008).
Review of Arguments For and Against Conceal and carry Policy in Universities and Campuses.
Arguments in support of the Conceal and carry weapons
Those who are pro the Conceal and carry weapons in colleges and campuses have various reasons which they cite to support the Conceal and carry policy. For example John Lott, a commentator in his article “Should Bans against Carrying Concealed Weapons Be Lifted on College Campuses?” he argues that permission to carry guns has reduced the number of crime cases reported in such areas. Using his analysis of the wider topic about Conceal and carry policy in 2000, Lott has stated that cases of murder reduced by 8.5%, those of rapes reduced by 5%, those of aggravated assault reduced by 7% and those of robbery by 3 % amongst the states that took a step a adopted “shall-issue” weapon Conceal and carry legislations (Lott, 2011). Lott further asserted that the realization of the reduced cases of crime experienced after the “shall-issue” legislations meant that 12, 000 cases of robbery, 1,570 cases of murder, 4, 177 cases of rape and 60, 000 cases of aggravated assault which were experienced between the period of 1977 to 1992, could have been prevented implementation of the Conceal and carry gun policy in those years.
In his 9th March, 2011 opinion article, Lott states that in 77 American Universities that had allowed those with permits to have guns carry them to school, little cases of gun abuse and gun violence had been reported. Also, the crime rate in such institutions had reduced significantly owing to the Conceal and carry policies which were introduced in such institutions (Lott, 2011). He however notes that contrary to those institutions such institutions, areas those that were in free gun zones had recorded several cases of gun attacks and also high rate of crime. Lott also argues that gun ownership is a legal process that is very easy to undertake and it’s only necessary for self-protection. He notes that owning a gun legally comes with a lot of responsibilities and hence, gun holders are law abiding citizens (Lott, 2011).
In her article of 9th March, “Concealed Carry on Campus?” Rousselle Critine supported the Conceal and carry in campuses by highlighting some of the instances that had occurred but which she says could have been prevented if students were allowed to carry guns. Citing an incident involving s student who started shooting at fellow students who did not have guns (Rousselle 2012), Cristine argues that such circumstances would be curbed or even avoided if the rest or some of the students had guns.
with permits for concealed handguns from 15% to 23%. Finding which were published in a Criminal Law and Criminology journal also showed that criminals always retreat, upon the person they’ve attacked withdrawing a concealed gun, 55.5% of such instances (Thompson, Price, Mrdjenovich & Khubchandani 2009).
In support of the Conceal and carry policy in campus, proponents have also argued that relying on the police to protect students from any attacks is not sufficient protection for such students. A report published in Wall street journal indicated that the average response time for the police to attend to an emergency situation is 11 minutes or more (Bartula, 2015). This therefore means that students who are not at close proximity to a police officer will not always be able to defend themselves immediately when attacked and the police too take sometimes to arrive at the scene. In such circumstances therefore, it would be necessary if such students were allowed to carry concealed weapons so that instead of depending on the slow response from the police, they are able to defend themselves in case of attacks. A case of Detroit even makes dependency on the police worse since the average response time to an emergency is reported to be 58 minutes. As Richard Mack, a Sheriff with Arizona Police, stated, “the police do very little to prevent crime, we only investigate the act after it has happened.” (Bartula, 2015). These assertions make it a necessity for students to have concealed guns with them so that they can be able to immediately respond to any attacks than wait for the police to defend them.
Arguments against the Conceal and carry weapons
There are those who consider the issue of Conceal and carry in universities and colleges something that should be avoided at all costs. For example, Mr. Hanigan Dennis, a director at Leal and Policy Analysis and former executive of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence commenting from an expert position states that colleges and universities are crowded places and students should not therefore be allowed to hold guns (Henigan, 2011). He says that such places would result into mass murder in cases of gun violence hence the Conceal and carry policy should not at all costs be allowed in campuses. Also discussing the issue of drugs abuse and alcoholism, a characteristics of most college and university students, Dennis asserts that under circumstances where a student is under the influence of drugs and alcohol, they are not in their right state of mind hence they can easily make impaired judgements and misuse guns.
It’s also argued that Conceal and carry policy will increases incidences of confrontation amongst students who hold guns. The chances that one will always confront their attackers if they are also in a position to respond to an attack is very high. This poses great threat to the attacked as compared to a case whereby the attacked has no weapon to confront the attacker. When an attacker feels unsafe, the chances that they will use their weapon are very high. A study conducted in November 2009 and published in American Journal of Public health revealed that a gun carrier is 4.5 times likely to be shot in an assault involving gun than an unarmed victim of a gun assault (Thompson, Price, Mrdjenovich & Khubchandani 2009). The same position was taken by Law Centre to Prevent Gun Crime and they stated that the various disagreements that occur in our daily lives are likely to be worsened to the level of shoot outs with the permission to carry and conceal guns (Miller, 2011). Basis on this statements, student should also not be allowed to Conceal and carry guns as little disagreements amongst them that occur in daily lives are likely to escalate to shoot outs. A typical example of such petty disagreements that led to a shooting it a 13th January 2014 incident involving a police who had a handgun another. The policeman shot and killed the victim after a disagreement over texting in the movie theatre.
Those opposing the Conceal and carry policy in colleges and universities also argue that the safety of the public, students included, should be left to professionals with expertise to provide security and not to private citizens. In the state of Wisconsin for example, although there is a requirement to undergo a voluntary training on the safety use of guns, the period of time stipulated as sufficient for such a training is not stated (Miller, 2011). Those opposing the Conceal and carry policy in colleges and institution therefore argue that some of those the students who will carry and conceal guns may not have the adequate training on how to properly use guns. This therefore mean that such an individual is at risks as they could harm themselves with guns, or could even harms other.
Since there are requirements for one to legally carry and conceal a weapon. It obviously means that there are those who do not meet such requirements and therefore will not be able to own guns. This scenario, some argue, has led to those unable to Conceal and carry guns feel Insafe. For example a poll which was conducted on 10th March 2014 in Illinois found out that 52.3 of the people interviewed felt that they were less safe after the passage of a legislation that allowed those who met certain requirements to carry concealed guns in the public (Rasmussen & Johnson 2008). The same situation would exist in universities and colleges of others met the criterion and were allowed to own guns while other who do not meet the requirements are left without guns.
My Position
Considering the arguments for and against the Conceal and carry gun policy in campuses and colleges in the US, it is evident that the Conceal and carry gun policy has helped to reduce crime, the analysis by John Lott shows that since the “shall-issue” weapon conceal and carry legislation was adopted, crime had significantly reduced, contrary to the arguments put forth against the conceal and carry. Looking at the arguments against the conceal and carry weapons policy in campus, they stem from mere fear from the public that gun holding could increase chances of gun violence. Provision of security in universities and campuses cannot be left for the police alone. Looking at their response time to emergencies and bearing in mind that there are not adequate police officers to provide each student with personal security, it’s necessary for students for the conceal and carry policy to be adopted in universities and campuses so as to enable students have self-protection
The arguments put against Conceal and carry weapons in campuses don’t present very strong points that would make the conceal and carry a bad policy. The issues raised against conceal and carry for example, lack of adequate training, fears amongst those who do not meet the requirements of holding guns and crowdedness of campuses and universities, do not make the conceal and carry policy bad but only iron out the areas that should be re-considered in the policy. The Conceal and carry weapons in campuses should therefore be implemented and the issues of concerns raised against it addressed, but such issues should not be used to abolish the policy.
References
Lott, John. Should Bans Against Carrying Concealed Weapons Be Lifted On College Campuses? 9 March 2011. Web. 13 April 2016.
Rousselle, Cristine. Concealed Carry on Campus? 9 March 2012. Web. 19 March 2016.
Henigan, Dennis. Keep Guns Off Campus. 25 May 2011. Web. 13 April 2016.
Prann, Elizabeth. Debate on Concealed Weapons at College Campuses Heats up at Georgia Tech. 22 September 2012. Web. 13 April 2016.
Bartula, Bowen. "University and College Officials’ Perceptions of Open Carry on College Campus." Justice Policy Journal (2015): 1-17. Web. 13 April 2016
Rasmussen, C., & Johnson, G. (2008). The Ripple Effect of Virginia Tech: Assessing the Nationwide Impact on Campus Safety and Security Policy and Practice. Midwestern Higher Education Compact.
Thompson, A., Price, J. H., Mrdjenovich, A. J., & Khubchandani, J. (2009). Reducing firearm-related violence on college campuses—Police chiefs' perceptions and practices. Journal of American College Health, 58(3), 247-254.
Miller, J. H. (2011). Second Amendment Goes to College, The. Seattle UL Rev., 35, 235.
