Many students at Northern took part in the Concealed Campus Empty Holster Protest last week, showing their support for carrying concealed weapons on campus. Every time I saw an empty holster, I cringed.
I remember weapons coming up during my orientation this past summer. Our student guide explained how guns, knives –– basically anything that wouldn’t be allowed in a high school –– would have to be stored at Public Safety. They also said, however, that arrows were permitted in the dorms. It seemed like a consolation prize to all of those hunters who’d miss their rifles outside hunting season. I found it a little unsettling.
Northern’s policy on weapons states, “It is a violation of Northern Michigan University ordinance to bring any lethal or dangerous weapon on the NMU campus … You are not allowed to use, carry, transport, store or possess lethal or dangerous weapons or explosives anywhere on the NMU campus.”
Northern students, through the Empty Holster Protest, are now showing their support for protective weapons to be carried for defense purposes in case of emergency situations, such as the Virginia Tech shooting in April 2007.
According to ConcealedCampus.org, the Empty Holster Protest is “a peaceful demonstration that involves students wearing empty holsters to class, distributing literature, and holding debates or speaking events.”
Participants were trying to make everyone feel campus would be a better, more protected place if a law gets passed allowing NMU students to pack heat. All I have to say to that is seeing all those potential concealed carry students walking past me turned my stomach in knots. I wouldn’t even consider carrying a gun, and I have an even harder time accepting the idea that my classmates might be able to in the future.
An article on ConcealedCampus.org commented about signs banning guns from particular buildings or schools, saying, “What these signs actually do is create (and advertise) a defense-free zone, removing legal guns and forcibly disarming victims. This is exactly what makes colleges most attractive to killers who seek easy targets.”
While I can understand the logic, especially after our close-to-home shooting threat this semester, I still have a hard time adjusting to the idea that someday the boy sitting next to me in class could be toying with a gun in his pocket, not just reaching for his cell phone.
Just this last week in Phoenix, the Arizona House passed a campus gun bill along to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer for approval. The bill would allow students the option to carry concealed weapons while walking or driving through state university and community college campuses, but would not allow those weapons inside campus buildings.
Currently, Colorado and Utah allow concealed weapons on college campuses, and Texas is undergoing legislation leading toward allowing concealed weapons.
Regardless of the extensive background checks, applications and approvals citizens have to go through before they are allowed to carry handguns, I still maintain allowing any kind of dangerous weapon on campus is asking for trouble.
According to an article by CBS News, Arizona “State Rep. Bob Robson said guns on campuses are a bad idea because students and others experience such emotional highs and lows due to grades, exams and other circumstances.”
College is a frustrating place for almost every student. From freshmen new to college to seniors close to graduating, and from transfer students adjusting to a new campus to non-traditional students learning how to use laptops for the first time, every student has their own set of stressors. Said stressors may lead to outbursts that could potentially be dangerous, and I sure wouldn’t want that guy who gets worked up over every “C” grade expressing his anger with a semi-automatic pistol.
Casey • Apr 22, 2011 at 10:07 am
If you feel that NMU is so unsafe then don’t go on campus. If you have to have your gun with you everywhere you go then don’t onto public school grounds. You’re more likely to get into a car accident than be in a situation that would require a gun.
martin • Apr 21, 2011 at 3:08 pm
I opened these comments with a list of facts. Every anti second amendment comment replied with fears, gut feelings, inexperience, unawareness, wild predictions… None cited lessons learned from actual events. Crime committed by CPL holders is public information. Although, the rate is a tiny fraction of a percent compared to the public at large, and crime committed using their concealed pistol is up to 1 in the last 15 years. Facts, not warm fuzzy feelings.
Fact: even with concealed carry on campus, universities can still ban the storage of weapons on campus.
Fact: gun laws do not prevent criminals from committing crimes.
Fact: current gun laws are not being adequately enforced.
Trevor- CPL holders, for the most part, understand that arming themselves is a personal choice in SELF defense. The extent to which one may extend this protection (people and property) depends on state law. “Vigilantism” is illegal in most, if not all, states. It may sound crass, but CPL holders are generally only interested in protecting themselves and their family. You’re on your own.
“Society has a sector reserved for people who enforce laws and protect citizens.”
Thanks, John, for holding the discussion to the facts. Law enforcement’s responsibility is to enforce the law, not protect you from harm. As unpleasant as that sounds, a police officer has no obligation to stop bullets, speeding locomotives, or jump high buildings in a single bound. Federal court decisions have supported law enforcement’s obligation to arrest the hypothetical mad gunman, but they have no obligation to shield you from harm. You and you alone can choose to take up the mantle of your own self defense. Police duties include drawing the chalk line around your corpse.
Alternative tools such as pepper spray, lights, and batons are essential to beginning your self defense. Mace and stun guns are illegal in Michigan. Hmm… it looks like the anti second amendment crowd could use some education.
Trevor • Apr 20, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Saying that “Police have no duty to protect anyone” is a gross oversimplification of several very complex court rulings. One of the most famous, Castle Rock vs. Gonzalez, was ultimately dismissed because the woman claimed that the police had robbed her of property by failing to enforce a restraining order. The court ruled that since a restraining order had no monetary value, it did not qualify under the 14th amendment, and the lawsuit was thrown out. Furthermore, my words were “I allow those people to use their judgment to protect me.” Nowhere did I say anything about expectations.
John • Apr 19, 2011 at 6:36 pm
Trevor- you are incorrect about this “agreement.” Perhaps you have an EXPECTATION of protection, however the Supreme Court has ruled that police agencies have no “duty” to protect citizens, and cannot be held responsible for failing to properly do so. Look it up, it’s a fact. There is no such thing as this “agreement” that you speak of.
Trevor • Apr 18, 2011 at 8:55 pm
Somehow “deadly” got turned into “public” in that previous post. Adjust readings accordingly.
Trevor • Apr 18, 2011 at 8:48 pm
Let’s get one thing very, very clear. Proponents of concealed weapons in public places champion vigilantism, nothing more and nothing less. Society has a sector reserved for people who enforce laws and protect citizens. Those people are called “Law Enforcement”. While a debate as to their actual efficacy could go on for some time, the simple fact is that my tax dollars go towards training and employing people who are specifically trained to respond to violent threats with public force. Through my tax dollars, I enter into an agreement with the state (or county, city, etc.) to allow those people to use their judgment to protect me. I remember entering into no such agreement with anyone outside the enforcement sector. I never asked private citizens to strap on heat and play Batman should a situation arise. If people are worried about self defense, there are a great number of alternatives, such as pepper spray, stun guns, etc., that can be used to protect oneself or loved ones in a violent situation.
Potterluver • Apr 18, 2011 at 8:27 pm
As a student at a huge university that is no stranger to school shootings, I have to say allowing concealed carry on campus would just add stress for some teachers and the campus police. If they do pass this bill though, I believe that each individual university should have the choice to allow concealed carry on their campus or not. This issue is one where arguments on both side have very good points. However, unless stricter background checks are implemented, I fear I will never support concealed carry on campus. Many of the potential accidents that could happen if concealed carry on campus was allowed, and the probability of concealed handguns ending up in the wrong hands carried more weight in my mind, and are two of the main reasons I still don’t support concealed carry. These are two very possible and dangerous scenarios that could happen. Guns are extremely dangerous and deadly weapons that should only be handled by trained experts and those who are mentally sound. After Virginia Tech, the public learned that the shooter was documented as having psychotic problems before the massacre yet was still able to purchase the weapons with little trouble. Hopefully individual states have learned to go into extensive background check when it comes to handgun purchasing. That being said, even if these precautions were in place, I have no doubt that those desperate enough to cause so much harm would find a way to get a hold of a gun illegally if need be.
Someothername • Apr 18, 2011 at 9:07 am
“So-Called” Gun-free zones are that in name only, unless there are barbed wire fences and metal detectors. They DO disarm law-abiding citizens, but a person with evil intent just ignores signs and policies anyway.
IN VIRGINIA, a recent Newspaper article :
“Four years later, Va. Tech shooting shows the futility of gun control laws”
Casey • Apr 18, 2011 at 7:31 am
“Also if you wish to discredit an argument Casey i ask you discredit the facts of an argument not the sole figurative part, if you do this it will lend much more credibility to you and push your point forth in a greater matter.”
Discrediting any part of an argument of which the conclusion is based discredits the entire argument.
It’s odd that no one said, Oh yeah I have my gun on my person while having sex. Unless the student lives alone the gun will potentially be in the hands of someone else.
I can spot a gun on an off duty cop so I’m pretty sure I would notice the bulge on a student in a lecture hall.
Estimates about stolen guns being used in crimes vary from 10% to 90%. No matter what the number is, guns are stolen and then used in crimes meaning the owner of the gun did not keep the weapon on their person or locked at all times.
I do not believe in gun bans. I do believe people have a right to own guns. I do believe in gun free zones for schools.
Adda Lamon • Apr 17, 2011 at 8:21 pm
If there is a threat-event on campus, just about everyone gets notified somehow pretty fast (text message, email, or that persistent popup on the laptops…). In theory, the rational person who legitimately has a weapon on campus would take steps to put it away safely (lock it in your trunk, lock it in something else) or make it insanely obvious they were not a threat (e.g. put it down, stand out of immediate reach, keep an eye out for others who want to take it).
Instead of preventing people from taking a risk which is not severe, they should be informed of the risk. How often do people get in car accidents, as the cause or the victim? How often do people get shot by law enforcement officers because they are not a threat but are carrying a weapon on a college campus? How often do students get injured by guns on campus? You’re probably more likely to be injured by a car. Yet it TOTALLY LEGAL TO GAIN THE PROPER LICENSING AND TRAINING, THEN GET IN A CAR AND DRIVE. Why not the same for people to carry guns?
Alcohol can mess you up. It is legal. Tobacco will mess you up, somehow. Tobacco is legal. How many STUDENTS smoke or drink? Tobacco messes up people around the user. It is still legal.
Stairs can mess you up. Fall down a flight if you don’t believe it. What if someone using a flight of stairs trips and falls on me? Stairs are legal. I use stairs all the time.
Instead of turning the world into a wold of sheeple, let’s have a world of rational people who think about the risks they take. If you are afraid of a person with a gun, stay home, in the basement with your doors, windows, and vents closed and locked. People who are most likely to hurt you with a gun (to my knowledge, this isn’t allowed) will probably break other regulations to do so as well, withough even pausing to think if they should or not. If it was as easy as banning all crime, police officers would have pretty bad job security.
Imagine someone who is determined to cause great harm to a specific individual or a group for whatever reason. Is it likely they will think to themselves “ I WOULD LIKE TO SHOOT ALL THESE PEOPLE. SHUCKS, I CANNOT LEGALLY HAVE A GUN ON CAMPUS (OR HIDE IT). Well, I guess I will just have to get on with life and learn to deal with stress more effectively. ” No, they will simply conceal the weapon somehow or find another way to deal poorly with their problems.
How many students use false I.D.’s to obtain alcohol? Regulation is there to protect underaged drinkers (and those around them) but the underaged drinker wants to drink, so, they do it anyway. Should we lock all under-age students on campus to prevent them from getting drunk, and dying of alcohol poisoning or driving and killing someone? Actually, since even people who are technically old enough to correctly and safely use alcohol get drunk and die, or worse, get drunk and maim/kill others, we should LOCK ALL STUDENTS, STAFF, AND FACULTY ON CAMPUS SO THEY CAN’T GET DRUNK AND DRIVE. Nobody can get hurt now!
Education before regulation.
Personally, I’m more afraid of students who rush in to class at the last minute radiating the offensive odor of cigarette and proceed to take the open seat next to me. I get a headache.
I feel threatened when I have to walk through a cloud of smoke created by smokers by doors if I simply want to enter the library. I can’t breath. I feel threatened by the smoke and irrisponsible smokers, so I feel they should ban all tobacco on campus because some people do not follow existing rules. Will they? Probably not.
I feel more worried about drivers who do stupid things, like TEXT OR TALK ON THE PHONE WHILE THEY DRIVE. These things are already against regulation. People do it anway, all the time. They might kill me, or worse, force me to be on life support and a burden to my family. Who wants to be maimed for life? Sign me up for life support!
When I was here for my first degree back in 2002, one of my friends had a T-square for art class. She told me she had to register it with Public Safety because it was a dangerous weapon. You can use anything to hurt someone, it just takes a bit of creativity. Not a nice thought, but reality isn’t often nice.
You can stab someone pretty badly with a single car key… they might lose an eye. They might have damage to internal organs. If the stabber gets lucky, they might hit the victim’s carotid artery. Bad news. Shall we ban car keys on campus? It is much easier to sneak up on someone with a key than a gun. You don’t even have to do much sneaking.
Existence is a risk. You just have to manage it logically. If you try to prevent all risk, you will not live, you will simply exist with the false impression of “safety.” You’ll get an ulcer stressing over every possible risk. Why not have a regulation that all students, staff, and faculty must have current CPR, First Aid, and AED training to some degree, and carry a first aid kit and CPR mask at all times? That would probably make campus measurably more safe than simply banning weapons which aren’t supposed to be used to hurt people anways.
Do not blame the implement, blame the hand that wields it. It would be ridiculous to ban cliffs because people die or are hurt if they fall/are pushed off them. It is more logical to simply warn people to avoid dangerous cliffs, and teach them where they are.
I HATE HAVING TO SEE GUYS BOXERS BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO COOL TO WEAR A BELT. That’s distracting in a bad way. I hate it when people who wear low-cut or loose pants bend over and you see more than you wanted to. What if this causes me to go totally over the edge… we should ban it! Ban boxers, ban pants, ban not wearing a belt!
Ban pencils (writer’s cramp)! Ban Paper (paper cuts)!
Ban getting drunk and driving!
Ban everything!
Someothername • Apr 17, 2011 at 7:06 pm
Article BEFORE the 2007 VT Massacre
Bradford B. Wiles, is a graduate student at Virginia Tech
published Thursday, August 31, 2006 about the August 21, 2006 “incident” at Virginia Tech
“Unarmed and vulnerable”
Recent good article:
“Four years later, Va. Tech shooting shows the futility of gun control laws”
published April 16th, 2011
John • Apr 16, 2011 at 4:42 pm
I can’t even fathom what it must be like to wander through life like such a weak, defenseless sheep. If you are too afraid, or inept to defend yourself, if that “scares” you, that’s fine. But don’t try to take that right away from those who are willing and able.
Have you seen Marquette and NMU’s excuse for a police force? Almost all of them are overweight or obese. Virtually untested up here in the UP. How often do you see these individuals actually get out of their cars and waddle around campus? Never? If you want to trust your lives and safety to those people because you trust them more than yourself, that too is fine with me. But again, don’t try to limit my choices for defense of self and family because you want to spend your time wandering around like a mindless sheep.
Jess B • Apr 16, 2011 at 3:34 pm
I agree with Danny. While I have no problem with guns and have fired them before there is a BIG difference between owning, maintaining, and shooting a gun for fun and having training to deal with high stress situations. There is a reason police officers and military have to do high pressure and stress training. That and shooting a buck is a heck of a lot different than trying to take down a person. How many students can HONESTLY say that in a stressful situation they could aim, fire, and kill/injure a person in one shot without any hesitation? Chance are not very many. While I think the thought behind carry on campus is reasonable I think in practice (as in if we did have a threat on campus) all it would do is mean more bullets flying through the air. It wouldn’t help. It’d just make it worse and more dangerous to bystanders. Sure there are probably a handful of students that could handle the situation however how can we guarantee that? I’d bet that there are a bunch of folks who think they could handle it but at the moment of truth how many really would be able to? I don’t want to make that gamble or have it made for me.
Danny • Apr 15, 2011 at 9:53 pm
I would not favor it. The process for getting a CPL is way too easy. The training involved is too simple and does not require any training for defensive use in high stress situations. Plus with all the drug and alcohol use on campus, combined with the low maturity level of many students, your asking for big trouble.
Aaron • Apr 15, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Casey:
I would like to point out that this is not about a permit to own a gun, but to carry it. It won’t affect who has guns in their residence area. Likely the same people who owned guns before they were allowed to carry on campus will own them after.
If anything, a permit to carry means a weapon won’t be left at home, where a meddling roommate might get access to it.
Trevor • Apr 15, 2011 at 3:58 pm
I’ve read a lot of op/ed pieces about CCP, and all of them suggest that the best (and prehaps only) true solution to campus shootings is to arm the students and teachers. However, if you look back through Columbine, VT, etc., it is absolutely inexcusable that warning signs exhibited by the shooter were not caught earlier. No one wakes up and decides to shoot his or her classmates, there are precipitating events and signs, such as blog posts or previously violent tendencies, that suggest that preventative actions need to be taken. Why not dedicate resources to being proactive and preventing the death and tragedy entirely, rather than simply debate whether to respond to them with further violence?
philip • Apr 14, 2011 at 11:41 pm
Casey your right a women having an abortion has no effect on anyone else, except for the baby she is carrying although thats a topic for another time, but the beauty of Martin argument is that you Casey hit the nail on the head about the point. To clarify what I mean is that you said an abortion has virtually no effect on the people around her, so when you look at the facts of the case you showed why his analogy is true. The reason i say this is that Martin carrying concealed has virtually no effect on the people around him.
Also you go on to say that a gun in a classroom is potentially dangerous in addition to being a distraction to the entire student population. Now I’m not the kind of guy who insults others so i won’t speak about you the way you did about martin i will just go on to explain my point. That point is that the facts are that a gun in the hand of a certified CHL holder is not potentially dangerous, this is because the firearm is safely holstered in a concealed location with no potential to be stolen because anyone willing to steal this firearm does not know who has it. That is the law, obeyed every day by many Americans who choose to carry. Then you say it serves as a distraction. I know not why this would be distracting, if someone were to show they had a firearm that would be distracting, and you would be within your rights to call the police on them to have them arrested immediately, end of distraction. For anyone who is willing to carry concealed they know that they must conceal their firearm in such a way that no one would know that they are armed, if you don’t know Martin is armed and he is sitting next to you in class how exactly is Martin distracting to you? Now you may say Martin is not distracting to me but the idea that someone in the class most likely has a gun is distracting and disturbing idea. To this i would say its just an idea, statistically only around 2 percent of the population carries, with that number being smaller on a college campus due to the age of college students, so it is very likely if not most likely that no one in your class has a gun unless your class starts going into triple digits while in senior and junior level classes.
Now I’m not here to tell anyone how to think, but if your feel your safety is at risk with people carrying concealed, or you feel distracted because someone may be carrying, realize these are feelings not backed by facts or logic but rather by emotions. We must not discount emotions, but when dealing with law and the rights of people other then ourselves we must not allow our emotions to overwhelm us in a way that clouds our minds to facts. Also if you wish to discredit an argument Casey i ask you discredit the facts of an argument not the sole figurative part, if you do this it will lend much more credibility to you and push your point forth in a greater matter.
Casey • Apr 14, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Martin,
Comparing someone with a handgun in a classroom to someone that has an abortion are apples and oranges. Nice try though.
A woman having an abortion has virtually no effect on the people around her that are not her family or friends. While a person with a gun in a classroom is potentially dangerous in addition to being a distraction to the entire student population.
Your argument is basically, “Look I’ve run out of legitimate reasons so I’m going to draw attention to another controversial issue and hope people give me my way.”
While I will admit people that have concealed carry permits are not the ones going on rampages I will not trust that their roommates won’t. More access to guns will always create more use of guns. Unless you plan on carrying your gun while in the shower, sleeping and during sex, you do not have complete control over who is accessing your weapon.
martin • Apr 14, 2011 at 1:01 pm
“Every time I saw an empty holster, I cringed.”
This displays a visceral, emotional response to what should be a logical decision. Here are the facts:
Since states began passing “shall issue” concealed carry laws in the mid to late 1990’s, national crime statistics have decreased.
States that have allowed carry in controversial places such as bars and campuses have seen zero increase in crime or accidental injury.
Crime rates among concealed carry permit holders is a fraction of a percent of that of the general public. Violent crime is nearly nonexistent among permit holders.
Areas with the strictest firearm restrictions (or total bans) still face high violent crime rates.
Even total gun bans do not prevent criminals from illegally purchasing a gun and attacking innocent people.
“I wouldn’t even consider carrying a gun, and I have an even harder time accepting the idea that my classmates might be able to in the future.”
I wouldn’t even consider (my wife) aborting a baby. I have an even harder time accepting the idea that someone else might be able to do it. Hopefully this illustrates this absurd line of reasoning. The Second amendment doesn’t force you to carry a gun. It protects your right to choose to defend yourself.
“You’re asking for trouble.” “Blood will run in the streets.” –these accusations are repeated every time second amendment rights are supported. The correlation is never accurate. It is important to not leap to action based on feelings and a lack of experience.
I don’t think “learning to use a laptop” is a plausible motivator to injure another person. The number of laptops getting shot may increase with firearm carry, but don’t those @$%& machines often deserve it?