-
1 of 10
-
2 of 10
-
3 of 10
-
4 of 10
-
5 of 10
-
6 of 10
-
7 of 10
-
8 of 10
-
9 of 10
-
10 of 10
Guns on campus
Archive
Comments
Story
As Idaho lawmakers consider allowing students with concealed firearms permits to bring their guns to campus, it seems wise to examine the stated rationales for such a drastic change in public policy.
Proponents of the measure argue that students should be able to defend themselves in case of violent incidents such as the school shootings at Columbine, Red Lake and, more recently, Virginia Tech. This argument, while intuitively and morally appealing, flies in the face of realistic threat assessment.
Probably due to a combination of human nature and media influence, threat assessment is more complex that most of us realize. More people fear flying than driving, although the former is a demonstrably safer mode of travel. Many Americans anticipate another 9-11 style terrorist attack, while far more of us die from food contamination and hospital errors on an annual basis than those who lost their lives that one terrible day. Many Idahoans continue to refuse to wear automobile seat belts or bicycle/motorcycle helmets, drive under the influence of alcohol, or build expensive homes on floodplains despite clear evidence of markedly heightened risk to life and limb.
The same principle applies here on campus. For example, solitary women often walk into elevators, or down stairwells, or across the Friendship Bridge at night, seemingly unaware of the extent to which these all increase their vulnerability to physical and sexual assault. Firearms access proponents appear similarly ignorant of the fact that the largest number of American adult homicide victims are killed at home, usually by a family member, and under the influence of alcohol and/or other drugs. Most younger victims are killed, maimed or injured at the workplace. On the other hand, schools remain relatively free from homicidal behavior.
Admittedly, when such rare but devastating attacks take place, there’s absolutely 100 percent involvement for the people there.
Yet studies of firearms discharge rates, going back to the Civil War, indicate that even in the heat of battle, with the enemy shooting or charging with fixed bayonets, only 50 percent of soldiers shoot back in self-defense.
Aside from overcoming the natural inhibition against killing another human being, an armed student attempting to intervene in a “active shooter” situation would also require constant training and an unusually calm temperament under fire so as to avoid “collateral damage,” i.e. accidentally killing someone other than their intended target.
Once bullets start flying, there is no control over their trajectories so that misaims, ricochets and wall penetrations can put more people in mortal danger. Once adrenaline starts flowing into the bloodstream, misaim becomes far more likely than accurate shooting. Ask any law enforcement officer or combat veteran who’s been in an actual firefight.
Another factor that receives relatively little attention is that the school shootings to date have been, in the end, suicides, rather than simply multiple homicides. In all cases, the shooters were people suffering from diagnosable mental illnesses. Statistically speaking, people living with mental illness are far more likely to become victims of violent crime than perpetrators. However, mental illnesses like depression and bipolar mood disorder elevate risk for both suicide and homicide.
Therefore, a better strategy for addressing the school shooting issue is to concentrate on education, early detection and prevention. But here, campuses are decidedly vulnerable. Few colleges or universities, BSU included, have implemented a campus-wide suicide prevention program. There is little to no training for staff such as resident hall advisors, faculty or administrators on mental health issues, despite estimates that up to 20 percent of students struggle with such problems.
Most campus counseling services, such as BSU’s, are under-staffed by half. In the interests of cost-savings, college health services often dispense generic quality psychotrophic medications which may not be as effective as their brand-name originals. Even university media, such as newspapers and radio stations, continue to use trivializing and stigmatizing terms such as “crazy,” “insane,” “schizophrenic,” or “retarded” when referring to everything from fashions to the weather.
Moreover, schools such as BSU expand their student populations while not matching such growth with parallel increases in faculty and staff. Combined with greater emphasis on research than teaching, this contributes to an atmosphere in which students can feel isolated, alienated and disconnected, as has been true of the school shooters.
Addressing these sorts of issues can not only lower the risk factors for violent behaviors, whether directed inward, outward or both. When the U.S. Air Force implemented a successful service-wide suicide prevention plan, they found secondary gains such as lowered rates of domestic violence, drug and alcohol impairment, absenteeism and work errors. The implications are quite clear: creating and maintaining a supportive campus environment represents the most effective path towards campus security. This approach is far more effective than either arming students, or placing metal detectors in front of every building entrance.
Finally, a word about Second Amendment rights to bear arms. Legal scholars across the political spectrum agree that constitutional rights are not absolute. Freedom of speech does not, as famously said, allow one to falsely yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, or to engage in hate speech or speech that embodies sexual harassment. Freedom of religion does not allow believers to slaughter animals during ritual ceremonies. Similarly, the right to bear arms, whatever the original framers had in mind, does not entitle citizens to wield military-grade artillery.
The question then is how to balance constitutional guarantees with real-world concerns about public and private security. This is of special concern to universities, which are dedicated to the free exchange of competing and even contentious ideas, and to sharp debates concerning deeply-held beliefs and values. Because of this openness, and the age demographic we generally serve, tempers often flare and people wind up saying, writing or acting in ways they regret even shortly afterwards. Recognizing that firearms speak not only to lethality, but to impulsiveness as well, campuses must be especially protected from their ready availability.
Proponents of the new legislation are entirely correct in that institutions such as BSU have not done all they can to prevent firearms attacks on campus. But images of heroic shootouts, in which one armed student saves others from death, represent little more than seductive and danger-laden fantasies. If we are to secure our campuses, we must address the actual risks in realistic fashion. This is something that the proposed legislation fails to accomplish.
Peter Wollheim, Ph.D. is an associate professor in the Department of Communication at BSU.
PETER WOLLHEIM
Guest Opinion