We come to class hoping to learn, graduate, and get a job. Although not as easy as it sounds, that process would be even more stressful if the guy sitting two seats over in English 1050 is packing heat.
But this June, the Michigan State University Board of Trustees passed a resolution to allow licensed concealed weapons to be carried on campus, although not into university buildings. While it does not immediately impact Western Michigan University, this resolution still represents a step in the wrong direction.
That particular direction is being explored a bit further, thanks to a bill introduced to the Michigan legislature last month by Rep. Wayne Schmidt of Traverse City. The bill, if passed, would essentially strip Michigan’s public universities of the authority to regulate their own campus’ concealed carry (CCW) laws.
The bill has a long way to go yet, but we want to state our unequivocal opposition to any firearms, registered or not, being carried by WMU’s students and faculty on campus.
In other parts of the state, it is legal to carry a concealed weapon if the user has taken the proper steps to become a licensed carrier. Schmidt has argued that college campuses should not operate under a different set of rules, and that his bill would clear up any confusion about where concealed weapons are or are not welcome.
Here’s a suggestion that might clear some things up: no guns on campus — period.
Some students may feel safer if they have protection within an arm’s reach, should the situation call for it. That’s fine, but will the several hundred strangers who pass by and see a holster on their hip feel safer too?
Allowing loaded weapons on campus will not make anyone “safer.” We don’t need students carrying out vigilante justice in the event of a threat to campus security. This isn’t the Wild Wild West and you ain’t no John Wayne.
As horrible as it is to think about, imagine what would happen should we experience a Virginia Tech-like situation with dozens of armed students and faculty nearby. Or if some poor student playing a harmless game of Zombies vs. Humans is mistaken by a would-be hero as a security threat.
What exactly is the desired outcome — a shootout between undergrads at Miller Plaza?
The odds of these scenarios playing out are admittedly slim, but there is no reason to take the chance. If by some stroke of idiocy concealed weapons were permitted on WMU’s campus, guns will have been entered into the equation where before they were restricted to a group of people who are already paid to protect us in an ugly situation — the police.
At his public forum last week, President John Dunn was gracious enough to answer an off-topic question about CCW laws on college campuses. When asked about the idea of concealed weapons at WMU, Dunn said bluntly, “I’m opposed to that.”
“I wouldn’t feel comfortable as an individual,” he continued, a sentiment likely to be shared by many unarmed students.
Sure, those carrying firearms might feel more comfortable, knowing they are capable of protecting themselves at a moment’s notice. Looking deeper, the basis of that comfort is the power that lies in holding a gun. Holding that power makes someone superior to those around them, to a degree, but how are others supposed to feel? Afraid.
Guns do not promote peace, or safety, but rather fear. It would not even take a deliberate act for a CCW resolution to go horribly wrong. A loaded gun can misfire, or stray from the possession of its owner. There are too many potential bad outcomes to allow guns into the equation.
It is a good sign that university administrators are not in favor of CCW on campus. We hope that decisions regarding the safety of this university and its students are not taken out of their hands by the politicians in Lansing.
About afox
I dont feel or agree with the argument about someone with a gun mistaking someone hunting a zombie as a threat. Do you hear of any problems like that outside of campus? Once you step outside of of Westerns Property you can carry concealed ANYWHERE except a:
. school (K-12)
. on school property (K-12)
. day care center
. child placing agency
. sports arena
. stadium
. bar or tavern where the primary source of income is the sale of liquor by the glass
. church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship
. entertainment facility with seating more than 2500 people
. hospital
. ** Dormitory or classroom of a college or university**
. casino
or otherwise prohibited by law which includes federal gun free zones.
so basicly there are legal people with a legal CPL (concealed pistol license) ALL AROUND YOU outside of campus.
There are little to no problems with the people that go through a CCW (concealed carry of a weapon) course to get a CPL because these people are law abiding citizens.
If someone wanted to harm someone with a gun… why go through all the effort and cost of getting a CPL if you wanted to shoot someone? … the criminals don’t, they just grab a gun and hide it illegally.
Does ANYONE really think… that a few little signs around campus that cant be larger than 8 in wide and 4 in tall is really gonna stop anyone that wants to harm someone? I’ll be honest, I know i am not allowed to have a gun on campus so i dont bring one on campus but, it took me till this year (my senior year) before i even knew there were signs up in a few places. These signs or rules will NEVER stop a HORRIBLE thing like what happened at Virginia Tech…. I am not trying to say that if a student had a gun he could have stopped it.. but what i am saying is that if someone was shooting up a building and i was trapped in a classroom or in any other situation i would like to be able to defend myself and not just bow before them and take it…
Another reason for this is because students have CPL’s and want to be able to use it without having to take it on and off.
If ya really want to know something, OPEN CARRY is legal almost everywhere in the state! if someone has a CPL they are allowed to carry a gun in a bar or stadium or day care as long as it is completely open and visible in a holster! for more info on that visit http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum30/
Now back to Concealed Carry on campus
here is way more information than i want to type
http://concealedcampus.org/common_arguments.php
At MSU there has been NO difference in crime or any gun problems
And it has been shown that CRIME has gone down…
and Finally….
The right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and bear ARMS, shall NOT!! be infringed.
Seriously, if you want to play GI Joe, go join the Army. This isn’t 1776, more guns=more gun related injuries, so let’s not tempt fate.
The process of learning would be no more stressful if the guy sitting next to you in ENGL 1050 was a legal CPL (Concealed Pistol License) holder who was CCW’ing (Carrying a Concealed Weapon), because you wouldn’t know. That is the idea of carrying CONCEALED. Concealed carry is supposedly the way “polite” firearms owners carry as not to scare uninformed people.
As said before me, not just in “other parts of the State” is it legal to CCW if you are a valid CPL holder, it is legal in EVERY other part of the state, other than the listed restricted zones. Also, parking lots of restricted zones, are NOT restricted zones.
“Allowing loaded weapons on campus will not make anyone “safer.”” Then do not allow the police to carry them. Also, the police have absolutely no obligation to, or legal consequence for not protecting you. Sorry, you may think the police are here to protect you, but the Supreme Court has consistently ruled the police have no obligation to defend the individual.
(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.
(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
“…a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen…” -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)
(7) “What makes the City’s position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her.”
Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).
(8) “Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public.”
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
If you are so worried that modern firearms will have random discharges, why do the police carry them everyday? Aren’t they worried about it going off? Are they not in danger? The facts are that a firearm does not “just go off”.
I’m also willing to bet that John Dunn has never shot a firearm, let alone received any formal training. To become a CPL holder, you must pass criminal background checks, which exclude all felons from obtaining one. Many convicted of misdemeanors are also restricted from obtaining a CPL, such as a recent drunk driving conviction or any domestic violence offenses. You must also attend a course in which you are taught firearm safety and operation. The course also provides a legal perspective on carrying a firearm, where any questions about carrying can be answered. CPL holders are trained and informed to carry a firearm. They are law abiding citizens with no criminal backgrounds.
Once again, if firearms do not promote peace or safety, then take them away from the police. If all they do is promote fear and intimidation, why is it OK for them? I am a valid CPL holder who regularly carries concealed. I carry my firearm because I am a NON-violent individual, carrying allows me to take any violent option away from any criminal wishing to do harm to me. I hope that I make it through life NEVER having to use my firearm for defense, as does every single other CPL holder I have encountered. However, it is a tool I would rather have and never need, than need and not have.
Criminals are going to break laws. They will not obey any of the words on paper that you feel protect you, because they do not associate any value to those words on paper. So, why restrict law abiding members of society from choosing how to protect themselves?
The only thing that promotes fear and makes people afraid are editorials such as this, which are misinformed and further misinform society. People who legally carry firearms do not have an itchy finger, just waiting to blast somebody. People who have that mindset shouldn’t own firearms and have more than likely been in enough trouble already to legally be restricted from carrying one concealed. I would suggest anyone go to a local range and receive some firearm training. You may just find out the truth about firearms, and you may just (heaven forbid) enjoy shooting.
I’m sick of misinformed people thinking people who own and carry firearms are crazy, bad people, but as I have said before elsewhere, I’ll keep holding the door open for you, I’ll keep letting you go through the intersection, I’ll keep picking up your trash, I’ll keep shoveling your grandma’s walkway, I’ll keep helping with donations for the needy, and I will also keep carrying my firearm. So next time you think people who carry are crazy, just remember, we’ve probably met more than once, you never even knew I had it, and you didn’t even get shot.
Hopefully you will educate yourself and be open to change. It is a huge advantage in life if you are open to changing your mind. You will be a lot happier. Also, if you’re interested, I will take you and personally introduce you to the sport and fun of shooting firearms, and give you 1on1 shooting lessons starting with the absolute basics, all absolutely free. I’ll even buy you lunch.
I hope the decisions about my safety are returned to me, so I may decide how to protect myself, because I am a responsible adult and I am responsible for my own safety and actions.
P.S. – I think it is hilarious that the Western Herald published an article defending smokers on campus as well as this editorial. Supporting something that DOES have a substantial, measurable effect on others, while not supporting something that has no effect on anybody but the individual who makes the decision. It’s OK though, keep sucking your cancer stick death sentences, while I make efforts to protect my life. I will not make any effort to create a law prohibiting you from doing what you enjoy, as you shouldn’t I, but I might chastise you and ostracize you if the effects of your pleasure are forced upon me.
I like how the people in favor of being allowed their rights on campus cite fact and history for their argument.
While those opposed to guns use fear-mongering and wild accusations to try and outright scare people.
This article shows the lack of journalistic quality in the Western Herald. It uses no facts nor any research in its opinions other then personal ignorance of facts and thus is nothing short of yellow journalism. No wonder more and more students believe this paper is a joke. I wonder if this comment will make it past the “moderation” if it doesn’t I want to hear why the herald which is in use the of the 1st amendment feels that this comment should not as well. I would really want to know, whoever “moderates” comments has my email.
Does the editor really believe this trash? How will it be stressful? If its concealed carry no one will know. I have carried concealed for years in many states. Gun Free zones equal Free Crime zones. Remember Virginia Tech? How do you suppose the outcome there would have been had the law abiding citizens not been disarmed for the killers convenience? Look at the only mass shooting in the midwest it was at a shopping mall in Omaha Ne. Which happens to be the only city in Nebraska that bans concealed carry. If you are a psycho where are you going to go to commit your dastardly deed? You notice they never attack a police station or a gun range. Now since Clinton banned carry on our military bases where did the latest terrorist attack occur? You are to ignorant about this matter to have an opinion that should even be listened to, much less be printed. Washington DC is the best example here in the US having had the longest unconstituional gun ban and yet the highest crime rate per capita and all the while increasing ever since their gun ban took affect. Lets look and see what happens now that their unconstituional law has been struck down by the Supreme Court.
Numerous studies have shown that more guns equal LESS crime (there is a book by that very name). The highest crime areas in the country have the strictest gun control laws (Washington D.C., Chicago, Detroit…). And it should be noted that Virginia Tech could have been prevented if a student had a gun.
Don’t believe it? In fact, two students with guns prevented such an attack at Appalachian State University in 2002: //townhall.com/columnists/AshleyHerzog/2007/04/24/gun_free_zones
This author of this article’s ignorance is only surpassed by his obvious desire to write without researching. There are so many ludicrous statements in this article that I can only assume that either this paper is a low rent rag of a periodical or that this author is most definitely without work at the moment.
To use the VT shootings as a reason why people SHOULDN’T be allowed to defend themselves is insulting as it is ignorant. And to say that someone would be worried about a neighbor having a weapon shows that the author knows absolutely nothing about concealed carry. Perhaps if he would reference a dictionary every once in a while before attempting to write articles he would learn the meaning of such words as “concealed”.