The Cavalier Daily
In the latest push for legalizing firearms on campus — something we have previously argued against — lawmakers in at least 10 states are arguing
allowing students to carry firearms will protect them against the
dangers of sexual assault. This is a veiled attempt at pushing a pro-gun
agenda, and demonstrates a complete misunderstanding about sexual
assault at colleges on the part of these representatives.
Perhaps
the most obvious flaw in the gun lobby’s argument is that allowing
campus carry would not exclusively put guns in the hands of potential
victims — it would also allow assaulters to legally carry guns on
campus. Potential rapists would now have a new tool in their arsenal
with which to attack.
But aside from this obvious lapse in logic,
the idea that guns would affect rates of sexual assault demonstrates
how little legislators understand the fundamentals of sexual assault on
campus. College women, according
to The New York Times, are typically assaulted by someone they know,
making them likely reluctant to use a gun against their attackers. There
is also the question of whether individuals will even have access to
guns in an instance of assault — would a typical student realistically
carry his or her gun to a party?
Even if the answer to that
question is yes, this presents its own set of problems. With binge
drinking at parties, the chance of gun accidents would be high. John
Thrasher, president of Florida State University, is a vocal gun rights
supporter who opposes guns on campuses. This is due to the death of a
student in 2011 who was shot and killed when another student, showing
his friends his rifle, shot the student when he didn’t realize his
weapon was loaded. Add alcohol and the general recklessness of a college
environment, and the potential for more stories in a similar vein is
high.
Wait til drinking on campus meets drinking with guns on campus.
ReplyDelete"it would also allow assaulters to legally carry guns on campus."
ReplyDeleteYep, as legal gun owners, but they never commit crimes, right?
Lets look at all of these arguments one by one,
ReplyDelete"Perhaps the most obvious flaw in the gun lobby’s argument is that allowing campus carry would not exclusively put guns in the hands of potential victims — it would also allow assaulters to legally carry guns on campus. Potential rapists would now have a new tool in their arsenal with which to attack."
So if someone is going to set out to rape someone, the lack of a carry permit will result in him leaving that tool at home? Rape is a felony all on its own. Carry without a permit generally isn't in most states.
"Even if the answer to that question is yes, this presents its own set of problems. With binge drinking at parties, the chance of gun accidents would be high."
Ah yes, we cant talk about college life without throwing in the stereotypical frat party drunk fests made so famous in movies. As if no heavy drinking going on off campus. Of course, a simple solution would be to punish those that behave improperly instead of banning all legal use.
Minnesota has such a law on the books for carrying while intoxicated. It has both a criminal penalty and loss of your permit to boot. What it boils down to is that college campuses aren't any different than any other place. And a person shouldn't be required to lose any of their rights just because they registered for some classes.
People who make the decision to carry a firearm for self defense are much more law abiding than the general public, which we've discussed here before. Walking onto a campus and taking a class certainly wont affect that.
So you don't think there is any problem mixing alcohol and guns? On campus makes a big difference. The school has a legal responsibility to keep students as safe as possible. They have enough problems without adding guns.
DeleteThe most important point for me is that most incidence of rape occur between acquaintances. These various types of date-rape are not going to be prevented by the woman being armed. And, as the article rightly points out, some of the rapists will be armed themselves.
DeleteAs I said Mike, there is hard data showing people who carry for self defense to be much more law abiding than the general public. Those that intend rape wont be deterred by a law not allowing them to carry on campus.
DeleteI believe that using the alcohol issue is rather disingenuous in that it seems to just accept that the irresponsible behavior is going to happen. This expectation without any apparent disapproval is the same as accepting the behavior as acceptable.
Students they may be, but they're also adults and should be expected to be responsible for their actions as any other adult. Those who make the decision to carry for self defense don't make that decision lightly and accept the responsibility and behave more responsibly because of the decision they have made.
Permitted carry has been legal in public colleges in Minnesota by non students for over ten years with no issues.
"I believe that using the alcohol issue is rather disingenuous in that it seems to just accept that the irresponsible behavior is going to happen."
DeleteHaving been in the liquor business (behind the bar and package stores) for 30 years, I can say for sure liquor does have that effect on people.
"The school has a legal responsibility to keep students as safe as possible."
DeleteSorry Peter, it appears times have changed in that area too.
"Most courts have ruled that colleges cannot be considered guarantors of student safety. Parents and students cannot be guaranteed that the student will not suffer harm on or near campus."
"This is incorrect in that the courts are rightly applying reasonable care standards to colleges and universities similar to that applicable to commercial operations in general. This reflects the reality that colleges are not only academic centers, but also have many other roles, such a landlord with respect to student and faculty housing and that as a place open to the public where visitors are welcomed. In those roles, courts are increasingly holding the institutions to the reasonable care standard when duty exists under rules applicable to other business establishments."
http://compelledtoact.com/Involvement_pages/Litigation/Civil_law_Analysis.htm
So in other words, the colleges no longer have parental responsibilities. And for the most part, the students are adults, and rightfully should possess all of the rights and responsibilities of an adult.
"Having been in the liquor business (behind the bar and package stores) for 30 years, I can say for sure liquor does have that effect on people. "
DeleteI would never disagree with you on that point Peter. However, restricting rights based on the possibility that someone may do wrong isn't the way to do it. There's nothing wrong with as I mentioned, sanctioning carrying while intoxicated, as Minnesota does.
ss, When you say, "Those that intend rape" you're sliding back into the mistaken impression that rapists head to the college campus planning on doing their thing. That's extremely rare. Most of these incidents happen during the heat of passion and are not planned beforehand. And as I keep saying, being armed is not a solution for that.
Delete
Delete"Most of these incidents happen during the heat of passion and are not planned beforehand. And as I keep saying, being armed is not a solution for that."
Possibly not Mike, however, the one best equipped to make decisions in regards to options for personal defense is the individual. As an adult, it's their right, and restricting their options just because of their decision to pursue an education is wrong. If it's legal for other citizens, it should be the same for students.
Treating adults as children is starting to not work anymore, as now former Colorado Senator Evie Hudak discovered.
"In March, 2013, while in a legislative hearing about legislation to ban concealed carryfirearms from college campuses, rape survivor Amanda Collins discussed how, when attacked by convicted rapist and murderer James Biela, she wished she had a firearm to defend herself. Hudak responded: "I just want to say, statistics are not on your side, even if you had had a gun. You said that you were a martial arts student, I mean person, experience in taekwondo, and yet because this individual was so large and was able to overcome you even with your skills, and chances are that if you had had a gun, then he would have been able to get than from you and possibly use it against you..." Hudak's comments sparked outrage and were described as insensitive to rape victims. A recall petition was created by several Colorado citizens opposed to the legislation."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evie_Hudak#Controversy_and_recall_petition
Sorry SS, a right to carry a gun on campus is not in the second amendment, that's why States have the power to decide that question and it is not a right in every State, and even in the States that allow it the carrier must meet regulations and guidelines.
DeleteSure glad you backed off your statement about irresponsible behavior when people have been drinking, but the way you phrase it, it seems you don't think the public has a right to put regulations on alcohol either? Wrong. Rights have responsibilities and misuse can/should be punnished.
By all means then lets fire all campus security and save ourselves some money. If the courts have ruled schools have no parental responsibilities, then just give every student a gun and they have resolved themselves of any security responsibility.
"Sorry SS, a right to carry a gun on campus is not in the second amendment, that's why States have the power to decide that question and it is not a right in every State, and even in the States that allow it the carrier must meet regulations and guidelines."
DeleteI don't believe I ever invoked the Second on this one, but gave my opinion that a persons right to carry in accordance with local law should not change based on registering for classes. And since this article concerns the legislative process to allow that to happen, its quite ok to voice my support.
"Sure glad you backed off your statement about irresponsible behavior when people have been drinking, but the way you phrase it, it seems you don't think the public has a right to put regulations on alcohol either? Wrong. Rights have responsibilities and misuse can/should be punnished."
Actually I advocated punishing the people who actually act irresponsibility as opposed to restricting everyone just in case a few misbehave. And I used Minnesota's law punishing carrying while intoxicated as an example.
Your double talk is confusing, I guess on purpose. So you don't think there should be any regulations on alcohol, just punishment for misbehavior? It's hard to understand what you say when you talk in riddles.
Delete"the one best equipped to make decisions in regards to options for personal defense is the individual. As an adult, it's their right, and restricting their options just because of their decision to pursue an education is wrong."
DeleteThe rights of the individual are sacrificed for the greater good and safety of the college.
Their rights are restricted, not "because of their decision to pursue an education" but for the safety of the college.
"So you don't think there should be any regulations on alcohol, just punishment for misbehavior? "
DeleteI thought I was quite clear. I stated that alcohol use is no different on campus than off, other than what seems to be an acceptance of irresponsible drinking to stupidity with no expectation of those doing the drinking being responsible for their actions. People who drink off campus are expected to control themselves and act lawfully or run the risk of punishment through the criminal justice system. Is there any surprise that this acceptance of irresponsible behavior leads to it happening more often?
I merely assert that the laws should apply equally everywhere. How about this for a comparison, How about a law that prohibits the possession and/or use of alcohol on campus? Use the rational of preventing irresponsible use and underage drinking. To include that sometimes, alcohol is used as a tool by some to commit sexual assault. This prohibition would also apply to those old enough to possess/use off campus and to those merely present on school property.
How do you suppose such a law would be received? And how exactly would such a law be any different than the laws prohibiting lawful carry on campus?
So SS, you are saying a college campus has no right to set behavior rules like the use of alcohol and guns on it's premises, and in fact those rules are unconstitutional?
DeletePeter, you need to stop fixating on the Constitution on this thread because its irrelevant. The article speaks to legislation at the state level removing restrictions against permit holders carrying on campus. As you can see, I posited a law prohibiting alcohol possession and use on campus.
DeleteThese are quite different from university rules. For example, Minnesota's carry permit law allows permitted carry on campus, but also specifically permits the school to have rules regarding permitted carry by students or employees.
So if, while I was attending my school, I was discovered to be carrying with a valid permit, I would not be guilty of a crime, but would be breaking a school rule and could be subject to some sort of school discipline such as suspension or expulsion. Employees could be terminated.
We are only talking about public colleges since private schools are of course private property and they can legally ban firearms completely if they wish.
I don't know how alcohol fits into regulations in school. But, tell me, do you think its illegal for an adult to say, carry a flask of whiskey on campus? Not drinking, just possession. In the school I attended, possession isn't illegal, but against school rules. Just like permitted carry.
In this article, it sounds like the legislation being considered specifically allows legal carry on campus, which means that the college would have to comply with state law.
Allowing guns on campuses is one of the craziest ideas of the pro-gun movement. Fortunately, most Universities and Colleges realize this and have banned guns.
DeleteOne of the reasons it's different from the state-wide situation is in the average age. I would venture that the lower the age of the gun owner the more chance there is of misuse, simply based on experience.
Also, to discount the rowdy, partying that takes place on college campuses is an exercise in willful blindness.
I don't discount the partying that takes place, I merely challenge the concept that it only takes place there, but in the real world of off campus life, there is an expectation of being responsible for irresponsible behavior, while it seems to be just accepted in college life.
DeleteThe modes of sexual assault are also no different off campus than occurs in college, yet we don't limit the options of citizens to choose how to defend themselves until they decide to pursue an education.
As for the lower average age, I certainly made a hash of that average by attending school. But at the end of the day, someone who is of adult age is responsible for their actions as an adult. Perhaps a better solution is to make that an expectation rather than thinking them as half adults.
"As an adult, it's their right, and restricting their options just because of their decision to pursue an education is wrong."
DeleteYou are the one who claimed a "right" and from this sentence I gathered that individual "right" you mentioned surpasses the right of campus officials to set rules of behavior on campus property. And yes, I thought you were talking about the 2nd amendment "right" an "individual" has. I was trying to get you to clarify. I was not fixating. Seems it's the pro gun people who fixate on the 2nd A. IMO a school campus has a right to set its rules of behavior on alcohol, guns, and whatever else they think will take away from a safe learning environment.
"IMO a school campus has a right to set its rules of behavior on alcohol, guns, and whatever else they think will take away from a safe learning environment."
DeleteYou are correct, they do have that right to set such rules, and violation of those rules would subject the person who broke the rules to discipline from the school. The worst of which would be expulsion.
However, it seems that these laws are specifically removing that option from the school.
Not at all, the school can can go to the police and have criminal charges filed. So what "right" were you talking about?
DeleteWhat criminal charges Peter? In Minnesota, it isn't illegal for a permit holder to carry on campus. Do you think the police will arrest and charge me for breaking a school rule?
DeleteHaul me to jail for say cheating on an exam? Nope. It being against school rules, the process falls under something not involving the criminal justice system at all.
If those rules are alcohol, drug, and gun related, yes. That's what we have been talking about. We were not talking about cheating on tests.
DeleteLaw enforcement enforces criminal law. As I said, a school making a rule doesn't make it a crime. For example, look at the recent practice of schools punishing suspected sexual assault through internal discipline hearings when the criminal justice system can't convict.
DeleteNope. If a school has a policy against kegs, the best they can do is expel a student of legal drinking age who broke that rule by throwing a kegger. What are the cops going to do about it?
DeleteThat was their choice to handle it that way, they are not barred from bringing it to the police and filling criminal charges, they do it all the time.
DeleteSo exactly what would I be charged with Peter? In my case, state law allows me to carry on campus. So what exactly can the police charge and potentially with? Police officers don't enforce school rules, though they might of back when that was the style.
DeleteThat's YOUR State law. I hope you are not suggesting all States have that same law. I would prefer schools call the cops and not try to handle it within their own policies. Seems to me these adults are getting off to easy facing school discipline instead of legal justice.
DeletePeter, the example I usec is very appropriate in that it speaks to who enforces criminal laws and who enforces administrative rules. If an adminstrator makes a rule under his authority as the head of say, a college, he can only mete out consequences that he has control under such as suspension, expulsion, etc.
DeleteHowever, if the rule isnt also something that is also criminally illegal, then it isn't law enforcement's job and them arresting someone for it will earn them a big lawsuit for false arrest.
There are times when the police have to tell the person who calls them that while the person who called might not approve of of what is happening, that doesn't make it illegal.
My state law seems to be working quite well here by the way. I think it would also work quite well in other states. The law in my state is actually stricter than the laws we are discussing here because as I said before, the law in my state allows school administrations to ban guns under school rules. However, those rules aren't enforcable by the police.
That's YOUR State law.
DeleteSo in other words, you are (finally) acknowledging that law, and not school policy, is what dictates whether or not criminal charges can be brought against the "violator."
Better late than never, I guess.
Not at all smart ass. What I'm not accepting is that a college cannot go to the police and file criminal charges, which is what SS is saying.
Delete"What I'm not accepting is that a college cannot go to the police and file criminal charges, which is what SS is saying. "
DeletePeter, the college can go to the police if they believe a crime is being committed and the police will come and investigate. If they find no crime is being committed, they will explain it to the college and leave, as they should.
Or the college could possibly go to the Prosecutor and report a crime and provide whatever facts they have. However, again, if it isn't against the law, then no charges.
Laws work in both directions Peter. By defining what is illegal, everything else is legal. Breaking school rules isn't a crime unless there is also an accompanying criminal law. And if that's the case, the police will arrest for the violation of the criminal law and not breaking the school rule.
Not at all smart ass.
DeleteBetter a smart ass than the type of ass you are, Peter.
What I'm not accepting is that a college cannot go to the police and file criminal charges, which is what SS is saying.
SSG is saying that no criminal charges apply if only school rules, rather than laws, are broken. There is a rather large difference, Peter, that you seem incapable of grasping.
Perhaps the most obvious flaw in the gun lobby’s argument is that allowing campus carry would not exclusively put guns in the hands of potential victims — it would also allow assaulters to legally carry guns on campus. Potential rapists would now have a new tool in their arsenal with which to attack.
ReplyDeleteSo we're expected to believe that someone who is not deterred by laws against rape, somehow would be deterred by laws (or even just school rules, depending on the state we're talking about) against carrying a gun where one isn't supposed to, despite the significantly lower penalty that comes with illegally carrying, as opposed to the penalty attached to the evil crime of rape? Really?
College women, according to The New York Times, are typically assaulted by someone they know, making them likely reluctant to use a gun against their attackers.
This again? How the hell does knowing the person trying to rape you make it less acceptable to defend yourself against the sack of shit?
Well, Kurt, your simplistic question might make sense if the typical rapist was a certain type of criminal who goes out to the college campus looking for victims. But as the article pointed out most rape happens between acquaintances.
DeleteYour other ridiculous question is so obvious that I must conclude you're just being difficult. How is the young woman who is armed going to know she's going to be raped in time to use her gun? Acquaintance rape is not announced beforehand. It happens after foreplay, usually after kissing and caressing sometimes even after clothes are shed by mutual consent. By the time it turns bad, it's too late to prevent it with a gun. The guy is too close, the gun is not accessible.
As it turns out, I said nothing either "simplistic" or "ridiculous."
DeleteYou, on the other hand, have explained the supposed "rationale" behind the notion that being armed is no defense against rape "most" of the time, without so much as attempting to apologize to the women you propose to leave disarmed even when they could save themselves (however "rare" that would supposedly be) had they not been afflicted with mandated defenselessness by the rapists' allies in school boards and state legislatures.
That's pretty weak, Kurt. You want to do away with laws because of the exceptional cases, however rare they are?
DeleteIt gets down to the fact that guns do more harm than good. We can't allow the "more harm" for the occasional good.