Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

From the right: Bring universities in line with second amendment

TNH columnist

Published: Thursday, February 2, 2012

Updated: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 16:02

The New Hampshire's most recent editorial was titled "Bringing guns to a knife fight: HB 334 bad news for college campuses." The editorial argues that an incident in which two defenseless and law-abiding students were stabbed and assaulted, respectively, outside the Adams Towers, clearly demonstrates that university administrations should have the ability to infringe upon the constitutional rights of students at public universities.

Tuesday's anti-gun tirade interestingly provides me the facts necessary to back up my piece. The incidents the editorial cites to support opposition to HB 334, the attack in front of the Adams Towers early Saturday morning and the tragic shooting that took place at Virginia Tech in early December, seem to clearly demonstrate why respect for the second amendment is in the best interest of student safety.

One wonders, for instance, if the events of early Saturday morning would have taken place had the victims been in possession of a gun. Even if they had not, would the attackers have been so hasty in their actions if they were aware of the possibility that their victims might be armed. Even if one is unwilling to acquire and carry a gun oneself, statistics seem to support the proposition that when would-be criminals are aware their would-be victims might be armed, they are less likely to act in the first place.

The second example cited by the editorial proves my point further. On December 8th of last year, a gunman killed two people on the campus of Virginia Tech. This tragedy invoked memories of a larger shooting that occurred on that campus in April of 2007 which ended in the deaths of 32 people. The editorial seems to infer that such tragedies prove, without question, that guns have no place on a college campus.

What the editorial fails to disclose is that, like UNH, Virginia Tech also has a policy prohibiting the possession of firearms. Section 2.2 of The Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Policy and Procedures Manuel clearly states that, "the university's employees, students, and volunteers, or any visitor or other third party attending a sporting, entertainment, or educational event, or visiting an academic or administrative office building, dining facility, or residence hall, are further prohibited from carrying, maintaining, or storing a firearm or weapon on any university facility, even if the owner has a valid permit…"

How peculiar! An institution with a strongly-worded policy prohibiting the possession of firearms was the location of the deadliest campus shooting in United States history. Could it be that those determined to take the lives of others have little concern for such policy and laws? If that is the case, as I suspect it is, don't policies and regulations prohibiting the possession of firearms only serve to disarm, and, in doing so, endanger law-abiding citizens? 

But I digress. The main purpose of Tuesday's editorial was opposition to NH House Bill 334, a bill designed to return control over gun regulation on state property to its owners, the people of New Hampshire acting through their representatives in the legislature. What the bill will do, so far as USNH campuses are concerned, is to effectively force state university administrations to comply with the second amendment. Essentially, passage of this bill will mean that students will now have a right to possess and carry a gun on campus so long as they comply with the law and undergo the application process associated with obtaining a firearms license.

What I found most humorous about Tuesday's editorial wasn't so much the standard anti-gun fallacies but, rather, the editorial's ironic appeal to localism. The editorial fumes, "it will not benefit this campus to have Concord making the decision about whether firearms are allowed at UNH" and proceeds to assert that this is "a decision best left to college administrations." Recall that this is the same editorial staff that only a few issues ago outright rejected privatization proposals on the basis of the fact that "the state's flagship university is just that – and that's not, and shouldn't, change anytime soon."

The editorial seems to desire, for this university, the benefits, whatever those are, associated with being a state university without submitting to the rules and regulations that Concord has every right to impose upon Durham. These well-meaning journalism majors seem to forget that most wise of English idioms, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Nick Mignanelli is a junior political science major and TNH's resident conservative contrarian. He is the communications director of the NH College Republicans. Follow him on Twitter @nickmignanelli

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

7 comments

Anonymous
Mon Feb 13 2012 21:15
Those making a legal argument that the university is somehow "state property" obviously need to look more closely at other recent actions by the legislature regarding UNH and other members of USNH. The legislature is quite clearly pushing them towards privatization. Therefore, this is all just bags of air.
Anonymous
Thu Feb 9 2012 20:01
Let's see! Employes of public universities carry a legal status of state actor while on the job. SCOTUS incorporated the 2nd Amendment onto the states in McDonald v City of Chicago and although state actors are not specifically mentioned in the incorporation statement in the majority opinion, they are automatically included in the incorporation statement. Since the status of state actor will trump Scalia's sensitive place nonsense the universities have been brought into line with the 2nd Amendment. Although it will clearly take another decision to make them understand the facts of the matter.
Jarhead1982
Sat Feb 4 2012 03:09
Lets review the following 10 mass shootings, and note what the body counts were where resistance occurred versus no resistance.

October 16, 1991, Luby's Cafeteria, Killeen, TX, "Gun-Free": 1 gunman, 23 murdered, 20 injured.
April 20, 1999, Columbine, "Gun-Free": 2 gunmen, 13 murdered, 24 injured. Many were murdered AFTER the police were "on scene".
April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech, "Gun-Free": 1 gunman, 32 murdered, 25 injured. Most were murdered AFTER the police were "on scene".
Feb 14,2008 Northern Illinois University, 1 gunman, 5 dead, 18 injured, gunman kills self long before police arrive to engage.
Nov 5 ,2009 Ft Hood Texas, 1 gunman, 13 dead, 30 wounded. Military personnel on base are BANNED from having a weapon, but the shooter did, and it was almost 9 minutes before police responded

Gun Free Zone 5 incidents

Defenseless victims murdered: 86
Defenseless victims injured: 117

December 17, 1991 Shoney's Family Restaurant, Anniston, AL: 3 gunmen, 20 hostages, one ARMED customer (Thomas Glenn Terry). Police finally arrived to find one dead robber, one wounded robber and the third had fled when the shooting started. NO INJURED INNOCENTS.
October 1, 1997, Pearl High School: 1 gunman, 2 murdered, 7 injured: Stopped by ARMED vice principal.
January 16, 2002, Virginia Appalachian School of Law: 1 gunman, 3 murdered, 3 injured. Killer was stopped when confronted by two ARMED students.
Dec 9 2007, Colorado Springs, New Life Church, 1 gunman 2 murdered, 3 injured, gunman stopped when armed woman shoots gunman, who then turns gun on self and commits suicide, while 100 other church members are in church.
May 4th, College Station Georgia 2 gunman, 10 victims, 1 dead gunman, 1 victim wounded. The 2 thugs robbing a party begin discussing if they have enough bullets to do the job. One man retrieves his firearm, kills one thug, chases the other off.

Where murderers encountered ARMED resistance 5 incidents

murdered: 7
Where murderers encountered ARMED resistance; injured: 14

Wow, where no resistance occurred 9 plus times higher body count.

Yep, a higher body count is morally superior to a lower body count based on some unenlightened adminstrators beliefs.

Jarhead1982
Sat Feb 4 2012 03:08
Here are some statistics.

The U.S. Dept of Education, the FBI and the U.S. Secret Service recently released an extensive research report ("Campus Attacks - Targeted Violence Affecting Institutions of Higher Learning") that indicated the incidents of college campus violence had drastically increased in the past 20 years.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/campus-attacks/campus-attacks-pdf/view

What is the risk being near a person carrying concealed.

We see US Census 2008 18.4 mil students, 42% 21 or older, 4,300 schools.

186 mil / 4,300 schools = 4,276 avg. students per school

US Census 186 mil 21 or older, 8 mil cpl licensee's BATF 8 mil / 186 mil = 4.3% of population has cpl license.

18.4 mil x 42% = 7.728 mil x 4.3% = 332,304 / 4,300 schools = 77.28 avg. per school.

77.28 / 4, 276 = 1.8% chance of being around a student who is carrying concealed. Oh wow, that is so scary and so dangerous.

Based on those unenlightened anti freedom administrators unsubstantiated fear, we should see thousands, uh no, hundreds, uh no, even tens of police reports showing you college students are identifying and assisting police in catching people who are carrying concealed today? Nope, you people can't even see the criminals carrying concealed today, yet you are more afraid of law abiding citizens than criminals. Speaks volumes of your mental immaturity.

Now lets identify the risk and compare a cpl licensee to someone safe, say a doctor.

ATF Max 8 million CPL's US, approximately 186 million age 21 or older or 4.3% of the people licensed for CPL.

Possible deaths from CPL holders in 3 year time span from Violence Policy Center report last year, 137 or 45 per year equals .00000562 per concealed license holder (45/8 mil). You can also review Florida's data on CCW at http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html it says the same thing.

JAMA http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/286/4/415 700,000 doctors in US kill 44,000 to 98,000 by medical malpractice every year or .14 per physician. (.065 or .14/ 700,000)

Physician is .065 or .14 /.00000562 = 12,000 to 25,000 times more likely to harm you than a CPL holder.

So where is the risk from concealed carry holders and why aren't you antis crying to ban doctors?

Anonymous
Fri Feb 3 2012 14:32
My biggest problem with this article is that you site statistics, but you never point out where you received those statistics or even the specifics involving your statistics.
Anonymous
Fri Feb 3 2012 14:21
you make the statement that virginia tech is an institution with a"strongly-worded policy" and just happened to have the worst school shotting in US history. however, can you back up your points with statistics on unviersity gun policy to shootings? i would bet that there are plenty of universities and colleges in the US that have similar gun control policies that have never had a shooting occur. in fact, has the state of new hampshire ever had a school shooting?

also, i would like to point out an error you made. you stated that "This tragedy invoked memories of a larger shooting that occurred on that campus in April of 2007 which ended in the deaths of 32 people." However, 33 people died that day. The gunman also shot himself.

FrankInFL
Fri Feb 3 2012 08:54
Well said, Nick, although I would adjust your last sentence to include this from the Codex Magniloquens:

Who emulates the great god Pan
If recompensed by mortal man
Shall airs and dances play for him
Pursuant to requester's whim.

;-)





log out