Preventing Future Tragedies
Sadly, school shootings appear to have become a regular part of our society.
Beginning with Columbine (to my recollection at least, though it probably wasn't the first), there have been a number of successful and unsuccessful attempts by mentally ill individuals to end their lives while taking a number of others with them. I can't help but feel that the media attention given to these atrocities only perpetuates their future existence, but I'll put that matter aside.
Today I read this CNN article about Utah being the only state in the union to allow students and professors to carry concealed weapons to class. It could largely be summed up by this one Utah gun-carrying student quote:
We're a very large school in a very large urban area known for very big gun and mental health problems. We're the school of Tarasoff and Trustifarian. Our local watering holes are riddled with gun violence, as most recently seen here.
What's the answer? Arming our "community service officers"? Restricting entrances to only those with metal detectors? Nothing's jumping out at me as the right answer. How about you?
[Ed. notes: (1) don't pull your own "Trustifarian" here, it's not funny; and (2) don't post anything with people's names or revealing information.]
Beginning with Columbine (to my recollection at least, though it probably wasn't the first), there have been a number of successful and unsuccessful attempts by mentally ill individuals to end their lives while taking a number of others with them. I can't help but feel that the media attention given to these atrocities only perpetuates their future existence, but I'll put that matter aside.
Today I read this CNN article about Utah being the only state in the union to allow students and professors to carry concealed weapons to class. It could largely be summed up by this one Utah gun-carrying student quote:
"Last year, after Virginia Tech, I thought 'I'm not going to be a victim,' " Nick said.
"My first thought was 'how tragic.' But then I couldn't help but think it could've been different if they'd allowed the students the right to protect themselves."
I want to make this clear: I'm not advocating for the Utah approach. Rather, I'm only bringing attention to this issue to hopefully spark a reasoned debate.
We're a very large school in a very large urban area known for very big gun and mental health problems. We're the school of Tarasoff and Trustifarian. Our local watering holes are riddled with gun violence, as most recently seen here.
What's the answer? Arming our "community service officers"? Restricting entrances to only those with metal detectors? Nothing's jumping out at me as the right answer. How about you?
[Ed. notes: (1) don't pull your own "Trustifarian" here, it's not funny; and (2) don't post anything with people's names or revealing information.]
Labels: Rabid Conservatives, Rabid Liberals
posted by tj at 4:34 PM
19 Comments:
[insert tasteless gunner joke here]
I hate the Utah/Texas line of reasoning. It is motivated by the desire to carry a gun and shoot someone, which is fundamentally incompatible with wanting to reduce shootings.
The geniuses who think inviting students to carry guns to class will somehow reduce shootings (probably the same people bidding for wolf tags) haven't thought it past how cool they think they would feel with a sidearm under their elbow. How many times have you been irritated by the folks who leave crumbs and crap on the Zeb tables when they leave, the registrar, the painfully slow line at Zeb, the ID checker who must think he's doing God's work by keeping you out of the library when you don't have your ID, the people who keep spamming your locker with glossy tree-product, the people who stand askance in the hallway while allowing their wheely-rolly-suitcasey-thingy to block traffic, the people who eat crunchy apples in the reading room, etc., etc., etc.,
Now, imagine everyone was carrying a Glock . . .
Well I'm going to take exception to the premise that school shootings are becoming a part of our lives or somehow that they are common. I'll bet $20 that there were more homicides in the City of Berkeley than school shooting deaths in the entire country in the year 2007. The point being, it's not just the media attention that's fueling the fire, it's the perception that this is somehow common or a "trend." Cringe.
How do you deal with it? Well let's worry about that once we've dealt with more pressing problems, such as the crime rate in Berkeley.
Waaaaaaay to rational, Armen. Esp for Berkeley.
Armen: I agree Berkeley's a cesspool, but that's not under control of the university. Given the city's recent priorities, I doubt they're willing to tackle anything this serious.
The city's unwillingness to deal with a much bigger problem doesn't mean the university shouldn't prepare for a less common, yet equally serious problem. In fact, I'd argue that logic dictates the opposite.
Urban crime and campus shootings are two related, yet distinct phenomena. Urban crime is generally linked to poor socioeconomic conditions and motivated by material gain (territorial, monetary, etc.). Campus shootings represent something different -- psychological unrest -- be it untreated mental illness, adolescent torment, anger, etc. I think the latter phenomenon is a lot more troubling because the causes are less tangible and the outcome less predictable.
Patrick: That is a dubious argument. I drive a deadly weapon everytime I get on the freeway. People piss me off all the time. Yet, I and 99.99% of the people driving manage not to run people off the road or run down pedestrians.
Also, it is legal to carry pepper spray and 3.5" or shorter folding knives on campus. How many pepper sprayings or stabbings do you hear about due to crumbs? I also carry fists and feet around, I can punch people with them, why do I not see daily bar-brawls in Zeb?
Guns do not make people crazy, or act irrationally, any more than cars or knives or spoons or fists.
The Utah line of reasoning is not motivated by a desire to shoot, but a willingness to shoot if necessary, which is completely different. You want to dehumanize people who believe in concealed cary because you don't want to analyze the logic of their point.
The want isn't to reduce shootings, but to reduce wrongful and assaults murders, through deterrence and rapid response in an emergency situation. If everyone was carrying a Glock, I would be far less tempted to shoot someone.
I agree -- weapons don't make people "crazy" and "irrational." And guns don't kill people, people kill people, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah. But . . . if people kill people, why give them guns? Giving crazy and irrational people (your words) permission to carry weapons is, well, crazy and irrational.
The auto analogy fails. Social utility. Ditto fists, knives, and spoons.
The last line of your post shows what I think is where the "concealed weapons deter" argument looses track. Almost *nobody* who is thinking decides, "hey, the rational thing to do right now is go on a homicidal shooting spree." But people do. Apparently on a semi-regular basis. I just cannot see how see the possibility of concealed weapons is an effective deterrent to whatever kind of thinking motivates such activities. Especially since many times (tragically), these people wish to die anyway.
I do not think I am dehumanizing anyone, nor do I "fail to see the logic." I understand that YOU would think twice if others may be carrying weapons. You sound like a reasonable fellow (or fellette, if applicable). But I think if there is a a "dubious argument" lurking around here, it's that encouraging weapons distribution in a society with a healthy dose of "crazy" people is going to reduce violence.
Anecdotal story: a multiple shooting took place in my college town last May. 4 died, several others wounded. One of the victims? A 20 year old kid who heard shots, grabbed his 9mm, jumped on his bicycle, and took off to "to help the police." When bullets started hitting the pavement, he changed his mind and was shot in the back. He lived, and both he and his father now maintain that he is a "hero."
THESE are the people I am thinking about. Not people like you.
I realize that you believe the deterrence effect will outweigh any increase in social harm. For the reason I gave above, I just can't agree. But pretend for a moment that you are me, and that you hold my belief about the non-deterrence of crazy people: would you be able to conclude that the opportunity to exercise your right to carry a concealed weapon is worth the social cost, KNOWING that, by granting everyone that right, the net amount of shootings may increase?
PS: I'm a gun owner. I just don't think I should be able to carry it concealed on campus.
Deterrence is mainly for crime and for people who rationally, albeit sadistically, want to hurt other people. However, if you give a cop out to knives and pepper spray for social utility, then you should equally give accept that firearms have social utility in their ability to defend oneself.
The other benefit, applicable to the truly crazy, is simply outnumbering people who try to commit these acts and minimizing the harm that they cause. In the recent NIU shooting, the shooter shot 21 other people, firing 54 rounds between two firearms. This is in a lecture hall of 150-200 people. If 5% of those students had guns, do you really think he would have been able to get off 54 shots?
Your story about the 20 year old who grabbed his gun is sad, but how does that distinguish a concealed weapons permit holder from a police officer? I assume you agree police officers should carry guns. They both have to have routine firearms qualifications, background checks, etc. Would it be any less tragic if a 20 year old police officer was shot? Would you say we should not have police or not have armed police because an officer got shot in the same situation?
What is the primary difference between a police officer and a student concealed weapons permit holder with respect to a campus shooting? All I can think of is that the student is more likely to be there in time to stop further killings sooner.
Also, note, that under California law, a concealed weapons permit holder can carry his firearm on college campuses. However, you can only effectively get a concealed weapons permit in California if you a) live in a politically conservative county or b) are a high-ranking politician or celebrity (Dianne Feinstein, Don Perata, Sean Penn).
11:40:
(I think) we disagree only on the cost/benefit distribution.
If I understand you correctly, you believe that giving 5% of college students firearms will cause a net decrease in shootings, because the initial shooters will be 'taken down' efficiently. I believe distributing weapons would cause an increase in shootings, because an incidental consequence to distributing dangerous objects is harm, and the danger posed by firearms are shooting.
It's an empirical question that I hope remains untested!
I confess you have me in a bit of a bind with the police officer/student comparison. An officer actually was shot (and killed) in that incident. As he was running to help, in fact.
What I want to say is that police officers should be able to carry weapons because they are better trained and screened than permit applicants, and can be expected to deliver to a higher standard. But then I think about the cops I see leaning on their SUV's in front of Boalt, smoking cigarettes, spitting, and eye-gouging the undergrads, and I start to wonder if I can back that up.
On the other hand, given what you say about California law, do you think a significant students on UC campuses are (legally) armed? If not, what effect does the California law allowing concealed weapons have?
Patrick: If your only characteristic distinguishing police from the typical citizen is training, would you then support a civilian concealed gun permit that would require equal training? We require something like 50 hours of behind the wheel training for a car, so it wouldn't be unprecedented...
I do not think a significant number of UC students are armed because it is almost impossible to get a CCW permit in most places where UC campuses are. Because of this, the overall effect of California's current may-issue CCW law is probably nil.
From a policy perspective, you could certainly make police officers and CCW holders have the same firearms training and qualifications. From a realistic perspective, I do not think the CCW and police firearms training and qualifications differ by any significant degree in California (SWAT and other special officers excepted).
Lastly, on the overall empirical question, I think that goes my way. 40+ states have adopted "shall-issue" CCW, which unlike California's may-issue standard, does not give discretion to law enforcement officers to deny permits to individuals who otherwise meet the statutory criteria. There is no evidence in an increase in "wild west" shoot outs or anything like that.
Now, I know that correlation does not imply causation, etc., but in the 6 years of Michigan's change to shall-issue CCW, overall violent crime and crime with firearms has fallen. Before the law, there were only 25,000 CCW permits, after there were over 6 times as many. Now certainly this doesn't conclusively prove that CCW reduces crime, but it is one example where there was no random wild-west type shootings because people were armed. Similar results have occurred in the other states adopting shall-issue CCW. I don't see any reason to believe why this would not be equally true for a college campus.
Michigan sees fewer gun deaths -- with more permits
TJ: Yes.
12:20: I'm humbled by the Michigan article, but confused about your position.
I thought that you thought that concealed weapons had little deterrence value, but lot's of emergency response value?
Yet, isn't deterrence the implied explanation for the Michigan phenomenon?
Uhhh, that's "lots"
No, it only has limited deterrence against crazy people. It is quite a good deterrent against the sane criminals. Even if you limit the discussion to on campus shootings by crazy people, you should consider the whole benefits if you consider the whole costs.
I'm still skeptical. Shat about other western countries, with tougher gun laws and lower violent crime rates?
Am I correct in my assumption that school shootings are generally a US phenomenon?
Well UK's handgun crime rate has gone up since their handgun ban.
It was motivated by a school shooting.
Handgun crime 'up' despite ban
The problem with comparing with other countries is the US is just more violent in all categories. It's more of a sociocultural problem.
The other issue is that gun ownership rates are so much higher in the US than other western countries that the "cat is out of the bag." That is, comprehensive gun control laws won't be effective because there are already too many guns on their and no incentive for criminals, who mainly use stolen / illegal guns in the US anyways, to follow the law.
Hmmm. Although some cursory internet research reveals that the issue is far less clear-cut than the BBC article suggests, your points are well taken.
You have convinced me that rational, calm people might believe concealed weapons on college campuses are a good idea. That is to say, you have shown that there are motivating reasons other than a secret, brooding desire to shoot criminals on the street.
The "cat is out of the bag" and the "more violent" observations seem like a form of question begging: The US can't control violence because it's more violent. I'm not sure whether the conclusion follows from the premise, or the premise from teh conclusion, but at any rate something is fishy.
However, I'm throwing in the towel -- I have to figure out rule of perpetuities!
This comment has been removed by the author.
(comment above was on the wrong thread -- not insulting!)
Post a Comment
<< Home