Thanks to the COM352 students for contributing a bunch of new pages! I'll be moving these pages into the main area of the wiki soon.

From UMassWiki

Are College Campuses Safe?
Daniel Hayden

"A gunman is loose on campus. Stay in buildings until further notice. Stay away from all windows." At 9:26 a.m. on Monday, April 16, 2007 Virginia Tech students received this e-mail from school administrators to warn them that Seung-Hui Cho had opened fire on students and teachers. During a three-hour period, Cho killed thirty-two students and professors before taking his own life at approximately 10:00 am. As the nation mourned the deadliest civilian mass murder in United States history, many questions were raised about the security and safety of our nation’s schools.

Seung-Hui Cho should not have been allowed to purchase the guns that he possessed. On December 13, 2005, Cho was detained for a psychiatric evaluation stemming from allegations from two female students that Cho was stalking and harassing them. As a result of the evaluation performed by psychiatrist Roy Crouse, Judge Paul Barnett concluded that Cho "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness” (Drudge Report). Cho was refered to an outpatient program for his illness. Because he was not involuntarily committed to an inpatient program he was able to circumvent Virginia’s state law regarding gun ownership which states, “It shall be unlawful for any person involuntarily committed to purchase, possess, or transport a firearm during the period of such persons commitment” (Virginia State Law). But, under federal law, anyone who “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution” (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms), will be prohibited from purchasing a firearm. Because of the slight variations in wording between the state and federal law, Cho’s mental instability did not show up on the federal background check that was performed before Cho was sold either of the guns. If the laws already in place had been followed, Cho would not have been able to purchase the weapons and the shooting could possibly have been adverted.

Unfortunately for all the families affected by the shooting, Cho was able to obtain two handguns and countless rounds of ammunition and he did perform the most horrific and deadly shooting in modern United States history. There were two major reasons that he was able to carry out this act without opposition. After the first shooting in which he killed two students, the campus authorities did not inform the students or shut down the campus because they believed it was an isolated incident. With 20/20 hindsight we can see that this was the wrong decision but Virginia Tech did what it thought was best at the time. Second, and maybe more importantly, Cho was shooting at students that he knew would be unarmed because, like the University of Massachusetts and most schools in the nation, Virginia Tech has a clear weapons policy stating: “Unauthorized possession, storage (in vehicles on campus as well as in the residence halls), or control of firearms and weapons on university property is prohibited” (Virginia Tech University Policies for Student Life). Cho knew that he would be able to shoot as much as he wanted without ever having to fear returned fire.

Since 1992, 330 students have been shot to death in school (National School Safety Center). Almost all of the shootings ceased when the gunman himself, either by committing suicide or leaving the scene, or police who arrived to the scene after being informed responded as quickly as possible. There have been four recent cases where armed civilians who were already on the scene were able to retrieve their weapon and bring an end to the situation long before the shooter was finished or the police would have been able to respond. I will describe two of these events.

On January 16, 2002, Peter Odighizuwa, a poorly performing student at the Appalachian School of Law arrived on campus with a semi-automatic handgun. He proceeded to enter a building and killed three people and injured an additional three. Two students, Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross, heard the gunfire as it started and - unknown to each other - ran to their respective vehicles and retrieved handguns that they were licensed to carry. When Odighizuwa emerged from the building, Bridges and Gross convened on his location and demanded that he surrender. Their heroic actions brought an end to the deadly situation long before fast acting police would have been able to respond.

In Pearl, Mississippi, Luke Woodham drove to Pearl Junior High School on October 1, 1997 with a loaded rifle after beating and stabbing his mother to death. He entered the school and quickly killed two female students and injured an additional seven. His plan was first to attack the junior high school and then drive to the high school to continue his killing spree. Luckily, assistant principal Joel Myrick had a license to carry a concealed weapon and upon hearing gunfire, ran to his car to retrieve his handgun. As Woodham began driving to the high school, Myrick intercepted him and pointed his weapon at Woodham. When suddenly faced with opposition, Woodham panicked and crashed his car; Myrick was able to subdue him. The shooting at the junior high school lasted a few minutes and authorities did not have time to respond, but because of an armed civilian on the scene, the shooting was contained and ended before additional lives were lost.

Both of these shootings demonstrate two points. First, the policies of schools and universities that prohibit the possession of weapons, allow a shooter to proceed with no fear of resistance. Second, armed civilians can respond and contain deadly situations much faster than police because, unlike police who require notification and then need time to reach the scene, civilians are already on scene and able to respond.

It is a tragedy that Seung-Hui Cho was able to walk through Virginia Tech and kill thirty-two innocent people. What makes the situation more tragic is that the shooting could have been stopped much sooner if properly trained students who were licensed to carry concealed weapons had been allowed to bring their firearms on campus. I would like to quote excerpts from a letter written by Bradford B. Wiles, a graduate student at Virginia Tech who was on campus on April 16.

On Aug. 16 at about 9:20 a.m., my graduate-level class was evacuated from the Squires Student Center. We were :interrupted in class and not informed of anything other than the following words: "You need to get out of the :building."

It was at this time that I realized that I had no viable means of protecting myself.

Please realize that I am licensed to carry a concealed handgun in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and do so on a :regular basis. However, because I am a Virginia Tech student, I am prohibited from carrying at school because of :Virginia Tech's student policy, which makes possession of a handgun an expellable offense, but not a prosecutable :crime.

I had entrusted my safety, and the safety of others to the police.

Of all of the emotions and thoughts that were running through my head that morning, the most overwhelming one was of :helplessness.

That feeling of helplessness has been difficult to reconcile because I knew I would have been safer with a proper :means to defend myself.

The policy that forbids students who are legally licensed to carry in Virginia needs to be changed.”

~ Unarmed and Vulnerable, The Roanoke Times

The second amendment to our constitution gives every person the right to bear arms for personal safety and the safety of our nation. An unarmed Virginia Tech campus was unable to produce a response to a single gunman because campus policy disallowed this constitutional right. The police at the scene performed to the best of their capabilities but their response was too slow. It is time for university policies around the nation to change to allow each citizen the opportunity to protect their own lives. One student trained and licensed to possess an undercover weapon could have changed this story from the largest massacre in our history into a heroic story of a well-equipped victim. More gun laws will not stop driven individuals like Cho from obtaining guns and using them in horrific manners, but armed civilians can help ensure that these people are stopped.

Works Cited: "Court Found Cho "Mentally Ill"" Smoking Gun. 29 Apr. 2007. 29 Apr. 2007 <http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0419071cho1.html>.

Stephens, Ronald D. School Associated Violent Deaths. National School Safety Center. In-House Report, 2007. 1-46. 2 May 2007 <http://www.schoolsafety.us/>.

United States of America. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Department of Treasury. Efinitions for the Categories of Persons Prohibited From Receiving Firearms. 26 Aug. 1997. 2 May 2007.

Virginia. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Department of Treasury. Title 15.2 Counties, Cities, and Towns Chapter 9. General Powers of Local Governments. 1 Jan. 2001. 2 May 2007.

Virginia Tech. Judicial Affairs. Student Programs. Tech University Policies for Student Life. 2006. 2 May 2007.

Wiles, Bradford B. "Unarmed and Vunerable." The Roanoke Times 31 Aug. 2007. 2 May 2007 <http://www.roanoke.com/>.