SGA bill produces smoking gun
You could say guns are what brought me to Liberty. As a senior in high school, I interviewed for a prestigious scholarship at a North Carolina school. The interview went well, and I was confident that my pre-rehearsed answers were impressive. That was until the last panel judge asked me my view on gun control. Needless to say, I didn’t get the scholarship, and I came to Liberty instead.
It wasn’t that I didn’t answer to the judges liking, it was that I froze in the face of something I wasn’t expecting. I would probably react this way if a gunman waved his weapon in my face.
I was raised in the south, therefore it is a requirement that I love guns. I even own my very own .22 caliber rifle, but I wouldn’t bring it to class.
On Dec. 6, 2010, the Liberty University Student Government Association passed legislation that would change current university policy to allow students who are licensed to carry a concealed weapon to carry on campus.
“We use Virginia Tech as our example — if someone is going to bring a gun somewhere (with the intent to use it), no law is going to stop them from using it,” SGA executive secretary Tiffani Orne said. “If someone is going to bring a gun on campus with intent to shoot, they would be more inclined to not do it if they knew others were carrying.”
Virginia state law allows concealed carry on college campuses with the permission from the school administrators.
“(The bill) passed in the Senate with an overwhelming amount of votes, but the opposition is also loud, ” Orne said. “Parents will probably be concerned, students will probably be concerned.”
According to the SGA Concealed Carry Bill, students with concealed carry permits would allow for a greater sense of safety and security around campus because an incident could be deterred without waiting for LUPD.
“If you leave campus, you are surrounded by people with guns all the time, and you don’t know it because Virginia allows it,” Orne said.
Although SGA passed the bill, Liberty administration will still have to approve it before students can carry.
Let us know what you think about gun control and concealed carry by e-mailing toverhultz@liberty.edu.
I hail from North Carolina, I have an incredibly thick Southern accent, and I am most certainly of Southern descent, according to Mr. Overhultz that makes me someone who loves guns. I can assure you this is not the case, and I’m not sure how the fact that I am from the South qualifies me to be a gun nut. I understand that the paragraph in which you declare you’re allegiance to the South and to guns is just to show where you stand on the matter, but saying that the South requires ownership of a firearm, whether it be in jest or not, is absolutely ludicrous, and not appreciated (I am also glad to read that you would not bring your .22 to class, for that I am apprecaiative.)
Dear Julio,
Taylor is a woman.
In all honesty, I thought the bill was an unrealistic fantasia devised by some people who want to play a Dirty Harry role of “hero”. I would advise the people who devised the bill to actually stop and think about the Mexican Standoff they want to bring to realization.
So some disgruntled psycho brings a gun to school and decides to start offing people. The school promotes the new concealed carry option for all students. Psycho boy’s having fun on his new rampage and the campus grounds are in chaos. People are running around and are potential targets. But wait! What’s this? A bird? A plane? No it’s five other students who decided to elect themselves as lone sheriffs and draw on psycho boy and a big shoot out ensues while again people…are running around, screaming, trampling, freaking out…..it’s pandemonium.
I’m a gun owner myself (12 gauge Over-Under Mossberg Silver Edition) and have taken notice of all the aspects of a gun, including the fascinating physics of bullet ricochet. Now image that in our Mexican Standoff and one of those bullets hits a bystander? or multiple?
One also has to take into account the factors of shooting a target, an animal, and a person. Sporting clays and deer is cake. Why? Cause there is no threat or stress factor on the shooters life or mind. A person is different.
Soldiers are trained to kill but the reality this task is much tougher than people realize. I have friends in the military who have talked to other officers who have taken a life and that the psychological repercussions are demanding to one’s mind, for on one factor the person realizes that they ended one’s life and on the other they realize also that the one who died could’ve been them. I would suggest interviews to people who have served who’ve been involved in these scenarios for taking a person’s life is actually a lot harder than what it’s glorified to be.(I’m a huge fan of Call of Duty, but I do realize a game is much different than reality)
An interview should also be conducted to police on these matters. Police and soldiers have training, control, they’ve been psychologically built up to that moment if taking someone down in fire fight becomes necessary.
Still anything can happen when adrenaline starts pumping. But what of those affects on someone who just has a concealed carry permit? Now let’s factor in adrenaline, psychology, and only target practicing on a person who is sane when they are about to take out a psychotic shooter. Can that person make a difference when ALL those factors come into play? And what about the fact they are not sufficiently trained to secure an area and take a psychotic down with the least possible amount of casualties, can they still make a difference? Keep in mind the psychological and biological factors.
Time for some people to experience a reality check and to wake up from the movies. This bill would potentially do more harm than good because of fire fights and potential victims in the line of fire, psychology on the people involved could be damaging, and then also too what if an incident happened where someone with a loose temper pulled a gun on some one? There is also that factor. Then consider as to what guns are approved to be on campus. It’s really hard to miss a barn with a scatter shot, much less a crowd.
In all honesty, maybe this bill could be approved only for students in service in the military or those who are seeking to be police who have been adequately trained in these situations. But to o.k. the average student populace to carry a piece, that’s asking for trouble.
While it is admirable that the SGA is attempting to hear student concerns, I don’t think they really thought this one through. We would be no safer with or without guns on campus; if someone wanted to go shoot up DeMoss, they would most likely do it whether or not they thought other students or teachers were armed. Additionally, as was noted on the previous article that mentioned this and other changes SGA is implementing, research has shown that the mere presence of weapons will increase the potential for violence. Allowing staff or faculty to carry is one thing, but for students to use them is completely different. Most college students are hardly mature enough to handle weapons, even those that could qualify for concealed carry. One fight, and someone could pull out the gun to make a point and have an accident happen, or someone else could take it from the person’s room and use it without their consent. By increasing the availability of weapons on campus, it is basically like asking for an incident to occur. I am all for concealed carry when you are in your own property or around town, but you wouldn’t carry in an airport, you wouldn’t carry in a government building or museum, you wouldn’t carry in a high school, so there’s no way you should carry on campus.
LUPD says their response time is 3 minutes. This sounds a little unrealistic, but we’ll run with it. 3 minutes, 180 seconds. Now put yourself in this situation: You’re in class, all of a sudden someone walks into the classroom with a firearm and starts shooting people. Start counting. One thousand one, one thousand two, all the way to 180. Let’s say this shooter is actually applying the fundamentals of marksmanship and is shooting at the slow rate of one round per second, or one student per second. Fight or flight kicks in. The overwhelming majority of people are going to start screaming and running for the closest exit. But wait, the door has been barricaded from the outside, there’s no way out. I would bet everything I own that by the time you counted to, I don’t know…2, that you would be hoping and praying that there was a “Dirty Harry” next to you playing the role of “hero”, not only defending himself, but you as well.
From a police perspective, in an active shooter situation, response time is key. You don’t clear every room on the way to the shooter, you run directly to the sound of gunshot and eliminate the threat as quickly as possible. Now I’m not saying that campuses don’t need police, only armed students, of course not. But this is where the old saying holds true, “when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.”
Everyone should have the right to defend themselves, regardless of where they are.
I understand this topic of armed students raises many concerns. I believe that if a university would allow students to carry on campus, that the campus police should hold a very disciplined and detailed class in which ONLY after receiving the necessary training that students would get their “campus carry consent”.
I also understand that this is not a perfect world, and even if students received all the training, range time, classes, etc, and God forbid an active shooter situation took place, that this would eliminate collateral damage, confusion, threat identification, and any lives lost, but if I’m ever put in a situation where some scumbag was trying to take my life and those around me, I would prefer to have another option other than staring death in the face and realizing that I can do nothing about it.
As an alum (’05 Print Journalism, ’08 MBA) I’m thrilled that my school has passed a Concealed Carry bill through the student government. I’m not sure where the smoking gun lies, as no one has been shot on campus, but i digress.
I would like address a couple of falsehoods and a few absurdities by Joseph Bond and Jeremy Terry.
First, Joseph…
“I thought the bill was an unrealistic fantasia devised by some people who want to play a Dirty Harry role of “hero”. I would advise the people who devised the bill to actually stop and think about the Mexican Standoff they want to bring to realization.”
I think your credibility is shot (no pun intended) when you start your thoughts with these two sentences. No one is talking fantasia here, they are talking stark, cold reality. Also, you do realize that in a Mexican Standoff, no one get’s shot. That’s a far cry better than what happens with no guns to protect the students – which is when people get shot. I think you would agree that no one getting shot is far better than many people getting shot. So yes, let’s hope for a Mexican Standoff until the cops arrive. Thank-you for your unwitting support for concealed carry good sir.
“I have friends in the military who have talked to other officers who have taken a life…”
So in other words, you don’t really know, but you’ve talked to people, who’ve talked to people. Right.
“Can that person make a difference when ALL those factors come into play? And what about the fact they are not sufficiently trained to secure an area and take a psychotic down with the least possible amount of casualties, can they still make a difference?”
Well, the facts say yes – a person can make a difference when all of those facts come into play and they can (and do) take down a psychotic with the least possible casualties. I’ll even back up what I say with sources and evidence instead of relying on conjecture, hearsay and people who have talked to people.
Last, you say that, “Sporting clays and deer is cake. Why? Cause there is no threat or stress factor on the shooters life or mind.” Well, as a bow hunter, I have to question whether or not you have ever hunted deer. I’ve killed between 8 and 10 deer this year, all with my bow. I could check my tags to get a specific number, but the bottom line is I’ve killed more deer this year with my bow than many people do in two or even three hunting seasons. The fact is that there are a lot of stress factors going on in a hunters mind: wind, scent, range, the deer, twigs, movement, etc…. I have friends who are very experienced hunters and have killed more than 30 deer in a year (many in the City of Lynchburg, in people’s backyards on city permits) who still miss deer because of these factors. The fact that you would say this gives me doubt as to whether you actually deer hunt or just have talked to people who have talked to people.
Jeremy, you are correct on a few good points sir. Since I believe in credit where credit is due, I’d like to make note of them.
“…if someone wanted to go shoot up DeMoss, they would most likely do it whether or not they thought other students or teachers were armed.”
You are correct in that if someone wanted to “shoot up DeMoss” they would most likely do it. However, when you say “We would be no safer with or without guns on campus,” the results of actual situations say you are not correct.
The fact of the matter is that students currently store their weapons at LUPD. There is absolutely nothing to stop them from storing their firearm at LUPD, checking it out and then going to “shoot up DeMoss” as you put it. The fact that it is illegal for them to do so will probably have little as most individuals typically ignore firearms laws when engaging in mass shootings.
“…Research has shown that the mere presence of weapons will increase the potential for violence. Allowing staff or faculty to carry is one thing, but for students to use them is completely different. Most college students are hardly mature enough to handle weapons, even those that could qualify for concealed carry.”
Well, I’m not sure which research you refer to here, but the research I will post at the bottom by two economists says the complete opposite. I have a hard time reconciling your statement about most college students and weapons when LU has many college students who have and are engaged in the War on Terrorism overseas. I dare say they aren’t mature enough. Are you insulting their ability to do so? I find it interesting that Uncle Sam will allow a college aged student to drive a tank but that your research has shown that they are not trustworthy when it comes to weapons. Please inform Uncle Sam of this immediately. Your country will be ever grateful.
However, I would like to point out that when compared to “most college students”, those who have gone through the training and background checks required by the Commonwealth of Virginia simply do not qualify as “most students.”
Further revelations by a longtime friend of mine who was a police officer at LU for many years and is now employed in local law enforcement in the area revealed to me that many police officers who worked alongside my friend only fired their guns once a year to re-qualify and that many of our mutual friends who had concealed carry licenses and shot on the weekends were far more skilled with firearms than many of the law enforcement officers that my friend served with. I thought this was shocking, but this individual is coming up on 20+ years in law enforcement.
There is no factual basis for saying that increasing the availability of weapons on campus would be asking for an incident to occur. In fact, the research indicates the opposite (more on that in a bit).
“I am all for concealed carry when you are in your own property or around town, but you wouldn’t carry in an airport, you wouldn’t carry in a government building or museum, you wouldn’t carry in a high school, so there’s no way you should carry on campus.”
Well, this may be your opinion, but the only factual reason people wouldn’t carry in airports, government buildings, museums or high schools is because it’s currently illegal. Concealed carry holders are law abiding citizens by definition. Why? Because otherwise they couldn’t have obtained their concealed carry, nor could they maintain it and they have every reason to want to be able to maintain their concealed carry status.
Ok, on to the research:
All students on public campuses are currently allowed to concealed carry into class. If guns were the issue, then you would expect to see shootings all the time in Utah colleges. This is simply not the case.
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-02-20/us/cnnu.guns_1_current-gun-laws-utah-legislature-campus/2?_s=PM:US
Ironically, “Last year, a few miles from the University of Utah, a man walked into Trolley Square, a Salt Lake City shopping mall, and opened fire. Police were there in only three minutes, but the shooter had already killed five people and wounded four others.”
That three minutes mark is key. That’s an extremely fast response time. In fact, that’s probably about the fastest that LUPD could respond to any situation on campus. Five people were already dead by that point.
In that vein…
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=258913
“There’s only one policy of any kind that has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the highly regarded economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.
And the effect was not small. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.”
The “safety” of so called “gun-free” zones is astounding.
“At Columbine High School, two students killed 13 people before ending the carnage themselves by committing suicide. They didn’t need high-capacity magazines because they were able to stop and reload.
At the Amish school shooting in 2006 in Lancaster County, Pa., the deranged killer murdered five little girls and then committed suicide.
In 1998, two students in Craighead County, Ark., killed five people, including four little girls, before the killers decided to stop and attempt an escape.
And in 2007, a deranged student killed 32 people at Virginia Tech – 30 of them in a very short period of time in one building.”
“School shootings that have been halted were almost always stopped by the happenstance of an armed citizen on school property.
In 2002, an immigrant in Virginia started shooting his classmates at the Appalachian Law School in Grundy. Two of his classmates retrieved guns from their cars, forcing the killer to drop his weapon and allowing a third classmate to tackle him.
Three dead.
In Santee, Calif., in 2001, when a student began shooting his classmates, the school activated its “safe school plan” – as the principal later told CNN – by sending a “trained campus supervisor” to stop the killer.
Possibly not realizing that he was in a gun-free zone, the killer responded by shooting the trained campus supervisor three times. Fortunately, an armed off-duty San Diego policeman happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day. With a gun, he stopped the killer and held him at bay until more police could arrive.
Two dead.
In 1997, a student at Pearl High School in Pearl, Miss., had already shot several people at his high school and was headed for the junior high school when assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a .45 pistol from his car and pointed it at the gunman’s head, ending the slaughter.
Two dead.
In 1998, a student attending a junior high school dance at a restaurant in Edinboro, Pa., started shooting, whereupon the restaurant owner pulled out his shotgun, chased the gunman from the restaurant and captured him for the police.
One dead.
See the pattern?”
Guns are used defensively in over 2 Million situations each year. Many times without firing a shot. Guns work, or people wouldn’t buy them. Period.
Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens make dangerous places like college campuses safer. In fact, there were five forcible sex offense on LU’s campus last year. Are you telling me that girls shouldn’t have the right to arm themselves? It was only a couple of years ago that a girl was stabbed in a girls bathroom in DeMoss by a guy that tried to force his way into her bathroom stall. Are you telling me she can’t be trusted to defend herself with a gun?
I know that some students have carried to class with them in the past. It may not make you comfortable to know that there are most likely individuals carrying concealed on campus at this very moment. It does, however, make you safer.
The US Supreme Court has held on multiple occasions that police are under no obligation to stop or prevent any crime from occurring (even with advanced notice) and that the responsability for personal safety lies with the individual. The police will not be held responsible for you getting killed, even if they could’ve prevented it. The Supreme Court says it’s simply not their responsibility. It’s yours.
To close, although it might make you feel safer to know that there are no guns allowed on campus, it certainly doesn’t make you actually safer. Honestly, the odds are that there are already guns on campus, you just don’t know about them. I suppose ignorance is bliss.
So are the comments only for those that are anti-concealed carry? I know of two individuals that have left pro-concealed carry comments and haven’t had them posted.
You can add this to that.
“You can never protect against this kind of incident,” Dana Schrad, executive director of the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police, told the Christian Science Monitor in the aftermath of the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting in which 32 students were gunned down by a lone gunman.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/02/21/2011-02-21_texas_lawmakers
_pushing_bill_to_allow_students_to_carry_
concealed_weapons_on_cam.html#ixzz1EbT7aGKA
People talking about other wanting to be superheroes and movie stars as a “reason” why students shouldn’t be allowed to defend themselves simply live in a fantasy world. Why? Probably from reading too many comic books and watching too many movies about superheroes and movie stars.
Mike, it sometimes takes a while for the comments to be approved, that’s all. Many of us on staff actually agree with concealed carry advocates, but we remain unbiased outside of editorials.