Archive for June, 2010

University of Colorado Puts Politics Ahead of Safety, Rights

Saturday, June 26th, 2010
The University of Colorado voted Friday to continue fighting for the right to ban guns on campus. The CU Board of Regents voted 5-4 in favor of appealing the lawsuit brought by Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC), which sought legal confirmation that college directors lack authority to suspend Colorado law or Constitutional rights.

Clearly, power and politics, rather than concern for student safety, are ruling the day for CU’s regents. Crime at CU has risen 35 percent in the past four years at the college which prohibits lawful concealed carry, while crime at Colorado State University has dropped 60 percent in the same time frame. No thinking person can look at those numbers and still assert that allowing concealed carry will prove dangerous for the campus.

In fact, other colleges in Colorado have seen the handwriting on the wall with the recent legal victory won by SCCC and changed their policies and allowed concealed carry on campus.

The Associated Press reported that Tillie Bishop, the swing vote, insisted the regents must be allowed to set the rules for a college campus. This argument may hold for private institutions with the authority to set their own rules on firearms as much as attire or conduct, but public taxpayer-funded institutions must not and do not possess the right to govern or suspend the right to bear arms any more than they can suspend free speech, or govern what books to read or what religion to follow. A right is a right.

Regent Michael Carrigan claimed SCCC first chose the oppositional approach by bringing a lawsuit, asking instead that students, faculty and staff be mustered to support ending the gun ban. It appears Regent Carrigan is under the mistaken impression that a majority must express support for a right before it can be granted. (It is doubtful that such a standard would be applied to freedom of speech or of the press.)

Regent Stephen Ludwig reiterated the well-worn and well-discredited argument that students experimenting with sex, alcohol and drugs don’t need guns added to the mix. Regent Ludwig should immediately begin tracking down and reporting students who are both licensed to carry concealed weapons and involved with illicit drug use, or who are armed while intoxicated, since either is grounds for permit revocation as well as criminal prosecution.

SCCC advocates allowing citizens who already possess the credentials to carry a concealed weapon to carry on campus. Arguments against “arming students” are not relevant, since the argument is not about who should carry, but whether or not colleges can enforce discriminatory policies against those who already carry.

By pursuing a costly legal battle with slim odds of success at the expense of the university – students, faculty, staff and ultimately parents and taxpayers – the CU Board of Regents continues to prove its willingness to put personal politics and authority ahead of the greater good of the entire college.


SCCC Featured on Stossel

Saturday, June 26th, 2010


Crimes Rise Across America’s Campuses

Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010

In 2002, the Secret Service released a report on school shootings in the United States. The project, part of their Safe School Initiative, studied 37 incidents in 28 years, and among their key findings, noted that: “incidents of targeted violence at school rarely are sudden, impulsive acts” – that is, even killers didn’t “just snap” – and that only some of the shootings were preventable. (Click here to read the Secret Service report.)

Sadly, in the eight years since the Safe School Initiative was released, America witnessed multiple campus shootings at places such as Virginia Tech, prompting Campus Attacks: Targeted Violence Affecting Institutions of Higher Education, another more comprehensive report on crime, violence and shootings specifically on college campuses. The FBI, Secret Service and Department of Education each contributed to the report.

The study included all forms of targeted violence that occurred on a campus between January 1, 1900 and December 31, 2008. In 108 years of data, the project studied 272 documented incidents of targeted violence on campus. These incidents added up to 281 deaths and 247 injuries. (By necessity, the study did not account for any unreported crimes. Also excluded are crimes that occurred after December 31, 2008 – such as the University of Alabama-Huntsville shooting.)

How did college crimes compare with K-12 schools when it comes to preventing these attacks? According to the report, any way you slice it, it’s harder beast to contend with.

“[College] campuses usually comprise many buildings, often with larger classrooms, separate faculty for each department, more uncontrolled access and egress, and irregular student schedules that minimize regular contact between educators and students,” the report states. “These factors are less conducive to observing and recognizing behavioral concerns among the student population.”

In other words, multiple factors on a college environment make these crimes even less preventable. In fact, the report states that there were warning signs or “concerning behaviors” present in only 31 percent of the cases. That means that a sturdy 69 percent of attackers don’t exhibit detectable signs or behaviors – which are already harder to notice on campus.

Maybe that’s why college campuses across the nation saw 3,287 rapes, 60 killings, 5,026 assaults and 4,562 robberies just in 2008.

One of the most disturbing trends is the dramatic rise in crimes in recent decades. The survey spanned 108 years, yet 60 percent of incidents were recorded within the past 20 years. The number of documented incidents has risen every decade since 1900.

One factor may be rising college enrollment, but clearly a collegiate population influx carries worse pitfalls than just crowded dormitories.

The report includes many other illuminating facts about campus violence:

  • 79 percent of attacks occurred on the college campus grounds – 28% in dorms, 27% in parking lots or college grounds, and 26% in actual buildings. Over half of these attacks occurred in classrooms, dorms or offices – areas often assumed to be safe because of location or activity.
  • 26 percent of attackers committed suicide after their attack. (This means a quarter of them had a death wish to begin with, but more importantly, three-quarters of attackers had a will to live which could presumably be used to halt attacks.)
  • Attackers’ ages ranged between 16 and 68, but only 8 percent of attackers had any kind of criminal history.
  • 21 percent of the attacks or killings were random. In other words, you don’t have to be on the outs with someone to be find yourself at risk…your only crime could be standing nearby. And by the way, after all of this research, experts still have no idea why random targets are selected.
  • Guns were only used in attacks 54 percent of the time.
  • Females are disproportionately at risk, because a majority of college patrons (57% of students and 54% of faculty) are female.

Notably, the most recent FBI violent crime statistics show violent crime across the United States has declined, even as firearm ownership and concealed carry permits are reaching record highs.

Gun-free zones on college campuses force law-abiding citizens into a position of weakness. By insisting that no legally-armed student, professor or employee carry a concealed firearm for protection on campus, colleges are stacking the odds in favor of the violent perpetrators and assuring no citizen has the ability to resist.

Critics often claim college campuses are too dangerous to allow lawfully-armed citizens to be armed for their own protection. The research shows colleges are too dangerous not to.


Help Wanted

Monday, June 21st, 2010

A famous president once said “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”

SCCC isn’t your country, and we’re not your president, but for those of you wanting to know what Students for Concealed Carry on Campus has done for you, the answer isn’t hard to find; legal victories in Colorado and Texas, moral victories in Pennsylvania and Michigan, and actual legislative progress in Georgia, South Carolina and Arizona. Plus, coordinating the national protest, crafting the national presence, and offering tools for you to succeed on your on campus.

Now SCCC needs your help. We need you to ask what you can do to help us. We have some fantastic people working with us already, devoting their time and their talent to a cause they believe in, and helping make SCCC a success. But we’re always looking to add more talent to the pool.

For starters, we have openings for regional directors in the Central and Northeast regions. Are you a good coordinator and leader who would be interested in working with SCCC national, coordinating on the campus level and helping spur legislation in your region? Maybe you’d like to step up and be a state director, or assistant state director.

Are you a graphics design artist? Do you have experience with web design, photography, videography or other design/image-based media?

Do you enjoy writing persuasively and debating the issue, helping convince skeptical classmates and readers of the truth?

If you have the time and talent, SCCC is asking for your help. What if you will be the one person that provides the final push, the one that makes that last bit of difference that pushes us over the finish line? Maybe all you can do is donate (which you can do securely via the PayPal link at the top-right of the home page), which is also greatly needed.

Regardless, we hope you’ll consider contributing to – and being a part of – the the next generation of freedom’s defenders.

Please contact the SCCC Organizers if you can help!