News
Students engage in empty holster protest
UM student Steve Dogiakos with his 9mm Glock holster on the Oval. Dogiakos has been wearing it to classes all week. He is the president of the Montana wing of a group that advocates concealed weapons on college campuses. (Shane McMillan / Montana Kaimin)
Story by Alex Tenenbaum | April 25, 2008
Montana Kaimin
About seven University of Montana students carried empty pistol holsters around campus this week to protest state law prohibiting weapons on campus and UM’s gun-free policy.
ASUM senator Jedediah Cox carried his large .44 Magnum holster on his hip for the last four days.
“I’ve been wearing it around campus, and no one’s said anything,” he said. “I think people just think it’s a big blackberry.”
In fact, not one comment was made to the protesters about those giant black things on their hips, even though they’ve displayed them in plain view in their classes, the library, the University Center and the Oval.
“I don’t think it really had the effect we were hoping for,” Cox said.
The Students for Concealed Carry on Campus were trying to start a conversation about gun policy this week, but by Wednesday, they had to change their goal.
Steve Dogiakos, UM chapter president of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, reframed the protest.
“We’re barely noticeable, and that’s just the point,” he said.
Dogiakos said some people argue carrying concealed handguns on campus would distract from the learning environment. But since no one’s noticed the holsters, out in plain view, a hidden weapon wouldn’t distract either, he said.
In Montana, lawful gun owners don’t need a permit to carry weapons in plain sight, but it is illegal to carry a hidden handgun without a concealed weapons permit.
But even licensed carriers cannot take their guns into banks, government buildings or bars – and according to state law and university policy, guns cannot be carried on campus.
Scott Martin, president of the UM College Democrats, thinks that’s a good thing.
“I don’t like to think about the guy next to me packin’ a gun,” he said.
Gary Marbut, president of Montana Shooting Sports Association, said those who wish to break the law would have no problem getting a gun onto campus. He said that while Martin doesn’t like the idea, it’s entirely possible that the guy next to him actually is packing.
Marbut said University policy would never deter a shooter.
“It’s not like he’ll get to the edge of campus and think, ‘Wait, I can’t do this because the policy prohibits it,’” he said.
Police can’t really do much in this area, he said, either in keeping guns off of campus or arriving in time to stop a shooting in progress.
“It’s not that they can’t always be there, it’s that they can almost never be there,” he said, adding that it’s not a problem with law enforcement, but a problem with logistics.
Jim Lemcke, director of UM Public Safety, spoke similarly in an earlier interview.
“Remember that in most cases, the damage is already done by the time police get the call, so folks have to prepare to respond and help themselves,” he said. He refused to comment on whether allowing concealed weapons on campus is the answer.
In the wake of shootings at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus is lobbying for licensed gun carriers to be allowed to carry on campuses to protect students from future shootings. The organization, whose Facebook group has 29,000 members, says campuses should legally be the same as malls, grocery stores, movie theaters and parks, where permits allow concealed weapons.
Martin downplayed the possibility of a shooting on the UM campus.
“These school shootings, albeit serious and tragic, are relatively isolated,” he said. Bringing guns into schools, already on heightened alert, would only cause problems.
He said that while he doesn’t like what the protesters propose, he recognizes their freedom of expression.
“Good for you for speaking your mind, but we have to keep our campus safe,” he said.
The Brady Center, an anti-gun organization in D.C., has issued statements against Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. Brady Center spokesman Doug Pennington said the idea of adding handguns to the university atmosphere is horrifying.
“Putting loaded, hidden, semi-automatic handguns in the hands of 21-year-olds is a terrible idea,” he said. “This is a case of creating risk where there was none before.”
But Marbut disagreed. He said leaving students without defense would make them vulnerable.
“Some people seem to think, ‘If we just disarm the victims, everybody will be more safe,’” he said. “It’s a non sequitur. It doesn’t make any sense.”
Both sides say they want to keep college students safe but will continue the debate on how best to make that happen.
This story has been viewed 1159 times.
Comments
“‘Putting loaded, hidden, semi-automatic handguns in the hands of 21-year-olds is a terrible idea,’ he said. ‘This is a case of creating risk where there was none before.’”
What Pennington fails to realize is that in most states, 21 year olds ARE allowed to carry handguns! Just not on campus. That is the problem.
“These school shootings, albeit serious and tragic, are relatively isolated,” he said. Bringing guns into schools, already on heightened alert, would only cause problems.”
“Relatively isolated” is a backwards way to look at the situation. The fact of the matter is, if a school shooting can happen at Northern Illinois, it can happen anywhere. Its not like some sort of disease that only one person gets in a town in the middle of no where; a school shooting can happen on any campus, at any time.
Posted by Steve Dogiakos on 04/25/2008 at 9:13 am
I believe the main consideration should be the increase of the availability of firearms. A school shooting can happen anytime, anywhere, but who is going to check for concealed weapons permits? A healthy dialogue should be encouraged but I think the fact that people sometimes want to be the hero or show they are superior to others in some way is another issue to arming students. I am familiar with the concealed permit laws, but why encourage more people to get them? My opinion is that the permits should be reserved for law enforcement and those highly trained in security. Not a hung over 21 year old.
Posted by Jason Anderson on 04/25/2008 at 11:05 am
I’m not sure about the whole situation, and I’m not a gun owner myself, but why are 21-year olds such a concern for Pennington and others? A 21-year-old can legally drink, can quite possibly already be a veteran of war, and can vote, but (s)he isn’t mature enough to carry a handgun, provided that (s)he has already applied for a permit and has been trained in gun safety and everything? I think our age group deserves a little more credit than that.
Posted by Micah Everson on 04/25/2008 at 12:11 pm
Micah...You are right. I apologize for the 21 year old comment. I got carried away. It has nothing to do with age. Nothing.
Posted by Jason Anderson on 04/25/2008 at 1:01 pm
To Messrs. Dogiakos, Everson, and other readers, the problem with guns on campus is not about 21-year old gun users. (I spoke with Mr. Tenenbaum for some time, and the comment he used was one of many points I made.) More broadly, I would quote the police chief at the University of Cincinnati, who said, “I don’t think the answer to bullets flying is to send more bullets flying.” Unless you’re a current or ex-cop or current or ex-military, a college student likely has no idea how to use a gun in a combat situation (where even trained police hit their targets about 20% of the time). Regardless, acquiring a CCW permit doesn’t require such knowledge in the first place. How many innocent students and faculty would be shot in a crossfire? And which student shooter would the police fire at first? How would they know? Furthermore, there is no guarantee that concealed-carry students will practice safe storage practices (and keeping them away from alcohol or drug users), won’t cause accidental firings, or make it easier for suicidal college students to fatally attempt suicide with a gun. Montana has the highest gun suicide rate in the country (about 14 per 100,000 according to the CDC). 1,100 college students commit suicide every year, out of some 24,000 attempts. 90% of attempted gun suicides are fatal. What Mr. Dogiakos and others fail to account for is the opportunity cost of easier access to firearms on college campuses - among the safest places to be in the country. The answer to the problem of guns on campus is not more guns on campus. That will only make matters worse.
Posted by Doug Pennington on 04/25/2008 at 3:26 pm
Mr. Pennington-
I would like to see at least two sources for each claim in the above post.
Posted by Charles Copeland on 04/26/2008 at 11:54 pm
To Mr. Copeland, you can find citations to those and other facts in the report we released in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting, called “No Gun Left Behind.” Each section is heavily footnoted. You can download it here: http://www.bradycampaign.org/action/schools/. (Note, the suicide figures specific to Montana can be found at http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html.)
Posted by Doug Pennington on 04/28/2008 at 7:02 am
Oh boy, this should be good. The Brady Campaign is notorious for never, ever, ever, twisting facts or taking things out of context.
Are you serious?
Posted by Charles Copeland on 04/28/2008 at 11:43 am
I don’t see it as an issue surrounding keeping oneself safe, i see it, as Doug Pennington said, as an increase in accidental firings, and mishaps. Having guns on campus just increases the risk that they will get into the hands of someone who does not know how to use them. No matter how many times you have been trained, or how much first hand experience you have, guns only make me fear my own personal safety.
Posted by Steel Brooks on 04/28/2008 at 12:31 pm
Alright, I checked Mr. Pennington’s link and the (very few) studies it cites, forgiving the fact that using the Brady Campaign as a source is somewhat like trying to convince me that global warming is a hoax by providing a link to the Exxon website.
The studies on suicide are obvious, it’s not surprising that gun suicide attempts are more successful than drug overdose attempts, but it’s also not of consequence in this argument.
People will kill themselves regardless of what means of doing so you ban. End fuss.
The link about the 2,000 elementary students getting expelled for bringing guns to school is also not surprising, or of any consequence in this discussion.
The source for the claim that police miss their targets 80% of the time is available only via paid subscription, so I was not able to access it.
However, the study involving the incidence of binge drinking and legal troubles among gun-owning college students was hilarious.
Quote:
“Students returned 10,904 questionnaires, which yielded an overall response rate of 52%.”
I’m sure anybody who has been through even introductory social statistics courses probably chuckled a little on that one.
Mr. Pennington- anyone who deals seriously with surveys and statistics knows that the ideal response rate is 90%. Trying to make generalizations from a response rate of 52% would probably get you laughed out of school.
A 52% response rate basically means that this survey might as well be self-selected, pretty much like those “surveys” Bill O’Reilly has his viewers take during FNC commercial breaks.
When the Brady Campaign starts dealing with empirical fact, instead of poorly-conducted studies and emotional pandering, I might take them seriously as a source.
Posted by Charles Copeland on 04/29/2008 at 6:53 pm
Mr. Copeland, if I have offended you in some way - and I don’t recall having done so since I’m pretty sure we haven’t met - I apologize. Otherwise, I can’t imagine why else you managed to be so overconfident, wrong and rude - all at the same time - in front of your colleagues at U. Montana.
In fact, the figures on gun suicide are directly on point. Easy accessibility to the implement of suicide enables the attempt. Choose a less powerful implement - like drug overdose - and the chances of survival are fair to good. Choose a gun, and chances of death are staggering. Take away the implement entirely and the attempt is thwarted. If you want to accept the costs of making it easier for college students to commit suicide by gun, you should say so, but my sense is yours is the minority position. My sense also is that you ought not to be able to make that decision for other students and their family members.
As for not finding the Police Quarterly study about police combat shooting accuracy, I should hope your college’s library would provide you access. (Research involves more than the internet.) The full citation is provided in No Gun Left Behind, at note 95.
As for the two peer-reviewed studies about the greater incidence of dangerous behavior among gun-owning college students, perhaps you could send your expert critique the Journal of American College Health and the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse - the sources for that data. For now, pardon me if I trust their academic credentials over yours.
In sum, what is really at issue here is your inability to meet the burden of proof you carry as the (apparent) proponent of such a crazy and dangerous idea as arming college students on campus. In fact - even with the lack of evidence at all on your part - the Brady Center, students, faculty, parents and law enforcement officials from across the country have asked questions that you haven’t even begun to answer.
Perhaps instead of displaying unwarranted overconfidence, you might consider addressing these and other serious questions about what is clearly a dangerously bad idea.
Posted by Doug Pennington on 04/30/2008 at 11:15 am
Mr. Pennington- I have not personally sullied you, only your organization which is not an impartial source to provide information from. You on the other hand, have made several somewhat personal jabs at me that I resent ("research involves more than the internet” etc).
I do not doubt the academic credentials of those involved in the study’s publication. In fact, they seem to be in agreement with me about the fact that you cannot generalize their findings. Their own study says and I quote: “Our data do not show whether guns at college confer a net benefit, impose a net cost, or have an indifferent effect on college communities or on individual gun owners.”
Sorry, but both they and I know that a 52% response rate is not good enough. Please stop trying to sway people’s opinions with figures from studies that admit that their findings as inconclusive, and please stop making cheap jabs at anyone who disagrees with you and dissects your source material.
Posted by Charles Copeland on 04/30/2008 at 11:47 am
Mr. Copeland, readers can judge for themselves the nature of your criticisms, your academic competence to make them, and the tone with which you have offered them. For my part:
On 4/29, you stated, “The source for the claim that police miss their targets 80% of the time is available only via paid subscription, so I was not able to access it.” Except that you are able to access it, Mr. Copeland, free of charge. My advice to you was direct, not malicious:
Research really is about more than just the internet. Ask your librarian at U. Montana how to access the article for free: http://www.lib.umt.edu/.
On 4/26, you asked for citations from me, a representative of the Brady Center, and I provided them. Your next comment, on 4/28, sarcastically dismissed them and Brady out of hand as biased – without even reading the citations first – apparently ignorant of the fact that the research I cited was done not by Brady, but by academics published in peer-reviewed journals.
On 4/29, you proceeded to make a series of unsupported, or unsupportable, claims that are either (a) directly contradicted by the record or (b) apparently invented by yourself out of whole cloth. I pointed to some of these in my reply of 4/30.
On both 4/29 and 4/30, you misrepresented the one article about which you show any knowledge at all. You called the study “hilarious.” You argued by implication that Drs. Miller, Hemenway and Wechsler would actually agree with your statement that their study is “poorly-conducted.” This is obviously false, Mr. Copeland, and the “introductory statistics course” you might have taken was insufficient to give you a thorough understanding of social science.
First, no social scientist claims certain knowledge from a single study. None. In fact, this is but the first study of its kind wherein the authors call for more research to further knowledge in this area. Reputable social science papers also have a “limitations section.” This one is no exception, and it is clear from your comments you haven’t read it.
Not only do the authors discuss the possible self-report biases of their methodology, they also report, on the other hand, that “With respect to drinking and substance abuse, important independent variables in our study, research has tended to support the validity of self report data.”
Finally, Mr. Copeland, you omitted – either purposely or ignorantly – any mention of the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted, where the authors state:
“In addition, the present study corroborates findings first described in the 1997 CAS [College Alcohol Study], in which, as we found in the current survey, students with guns were more likely than their unarmed counterparts to be men, live off campus, binge drink, and engage in risky and aggressive behaviors after drinking.”
Is this the type of person you’d like to have armed on campus?
Mr. Copeland, if you feel sensitive about someone pointing out the fatal flaws in your argument – and your argumentation – then in future, as I suggested earlier, you might be less inclined to speak so confidently about a subject you know too little about.
Posted by Doug Pennington on 05/01/2008 at 12:31 pm
Well as long as we’re dredging up other quotes from the study here’s this gem:
“Nationwide, 4.3% of college students had a working firearm at college.”
Out of 10,904 people that comes out to less than 470 people. Not even considering this is from a response rate of 52%, or figuring in how many of these students actually had a concealment permit, are we to formulate policy on the response of a sample slightly larger than Hellgate High School’s graduating class?
Mr. Pennington, you’d save everyone a lot of trouble by dredging up some new information other than what your bosses at the center have provided you.
Additionally, you didn’t seem too motivated to re-educate me on research procedures when I brought up the inaccessibility of the police association article before, why the step-by-step guide now?
Your first tactic was making it look as if I had attacked you personally. It failed.
Your newest attack is against my ability to research and interpret information. It too is failing.
The fact that I’ve managed to sidetrack a spokesman for the Brady Center for this long puts a wide smile on my face. Let’s do this some more. As for right now, I have more important things to do (get groceries, make dinner, etc.).
However, before I leave you to search furiously for articles matching your viewpoint that have not already been provided for you by your higher-ups, I would like to ask you a question: you are aware that a criminal record, or the commission of a criminal act is grounds for revocation/denial of a concealment permit, right?
Posted by Charles Copeland on 05/01/2008 at 8:07 pm
Far from being “sidetracked,” part of our job is to reach out to folks who may not already know where we stand, and why.
If I had ignored your comments, Mr. Copeland, as you oddly imply I should have, some may have seen Brady as not really caring what people thought. Except we do care. (Plus, while it’s easy to misstate the facts, it takes some time to correct the record.)
You are convinced you’re right, Mr. Copeland, regardless of the new information you’re confronted with. That’s fine. On the other hand, other readers at U. Montana will be able to compare our responses to each other, do some of their own research - yes, even at the library - if they feel like it, and make up their own minds.
I appreciated the Kaimin calling us at Brady for comment on this story, and if folks at Montana want to know more about us, they can visit www.bradycenter.org or www.bradycampaign.org.
Good luck on finals, everybody.
Posted by Doug Pennington on 05/02/2008 at 5:38 am
"You are convinced you’re right, Mr. Copeland, regardless of the new information you’re confronted with. “
This is the type of empty statement that can be leveled by any side at the other in a debate, and at any point.
However, the truth is that I have challenged you to provide me with any studies beyond those that have been badly misconstrued and provided to you by your bosses at the Brady Center- you have failed to do so.
Your commentary is wholly misleading- in the course of this game of tit-for-tat you have not given me any “new information"- just the same old out-of-context positions that your organization pays you to publicize.
Criticize my ability to research all you want, but until you can find me a single study not doled out to you by your higher-ups at the center (ie- not one of the links on the Brady Center site) the burden of proof rests on you.
Furhtermore, I find it interesting that on the page at the Brady site that you referred me to(http://www.bradycampaign.org/action/schools/) only two links direct internet users to studies that directly bear on the issue of firearms on campus and neither of these provide any specific information about the risks or benefits of conceal and carry on campus (and no, Mr. Pennington, citing the same study twice does not make two studies three).
PS- Could you please directly answer the question as to whether or not you were aware that a criminal record or the commission of a criminal act would be grounds for the rejection or revocation of a concealment permit? Thanks.
Posted by Charles Copeland on 05/05/2008 at 1:09 am
