House Bill 2513 would allow students with licenses to carry concealed weapons on campus.
President Burns Hargis said he supports the Faculty Council’s vote Tuesday to send a resolution to the Oklahoma Legislature promoting “a culture of safety” and denouncing House Bill 2513, which would allow students to carry concealed weapons on campus.
Oklahoma State University has a no-weapons policy.
The first line of the rough draft of the resolution reads, “In the wake of recent campus shootings and the complexities involved in making our campus safer, OSU Faculty Council opposes any legislation allowing concealed-carry permits for 21-year-olds on state college campuses and extended concealed-carry permits to 18-year-olds.”
The resolution was proposed under “new business” on the agenda.
Heidi Hoffer, an associate professor of theater, said she spoke with OSU police about the bill while researching to write the resolution.
“I spoke with Capt. Atkins about whether students could handle guns,” she said. “He said the age group of 18-22, even if they have a concealed-carry permit, are not trained in ‘shoot-don’t shoot’ situations.”
Hoffer said in situations where a student brought a gun to campus to harm someone and another student pulled his or her gun to protect other students, both had a chance of being shot when police arrived.
“Police would see two guns,” she said. “They would have to determine which one was the danger and both would probably be eliminated.”
Lee Bird, vice president of student affairs, served on the State Regents Campus Life and Safety and Security task. She agreed that students trying to protect others could be harmed.
“If you (a police officer) go into a room and see someone holding a gun,” Bird said, “You shoot them. Period.”
Council members asked whether HB 2513 allows faculty to bring weapons on campus.
Bird said the bill specifically prohibits faculty and staff from carrying concealed weapons on campus, even though it allows students with permits to do so.
Hargis said, “That’ll give you real incentive not to fail anybody.”
Bird said there will be a forum to discuss HB 2513 on April 9.
“There are groups forming on campus about this,” Bird said. “Mostly from students, pro and con, Mostly con, thankfully.”
The resolution passed with one abstention.
The Council unaminously approved a recommendation asking OSU to change the insurance premium structure to lower costs for employees with dependents.
Bruce Russell, an associate professor of civil engineering and chairman of the retirement and fringe benefits comittee, said the recommendation became more important this year.
“Comparing our costs to other schools in the Big 12, our health insurance became our highest priority,” Russell said.
Provost Marlene Strathe said she supported a recommendation from the faculty committee to hire spouses when hiring faculty, but that the council needed to look at hiring spouses to staff positions as well as faculty.
Christie Hawkins, director of Institutional Research and Information Management, presented the 20-year trend of faculty salaries and said to catch the Big 12 average in one year OSU would have to give 5 percent raises to every employee and spend an additional $12 million.
Hargis spoke to the council briefly.
He said he would focus on salary discrepancy, health care and safety, and security. Security would be his highest priority.
“I’ve talked to (Lee) Bird about this and we’ve been pretty lucky, but the clock is ticking.” Hargis said. He paused, knocked on wood and said, “I want to get the ball rolling.”
Loading ...
All Articles
First, read the comments on yesterday’s article concerning the poll:
http://ocolly.com/2008/03/11/sga-conducts-poll-on-concealed-guns-on-campus/
…pay special attention to the only apparent opponent to the bill, named Jasmine, and the content and quality of her post.
Now, let’s start at the beginning.
>”President Burns Hargis said he supports the Faculty Council’s vote Tuesday to send a resolution to the Oklahoma Legislature promoting “a culture of safety” and denouncing House Bill 2513″
This is a fallacy. This assumes without evidence that an unarmed culture is safer than an armed culture. Unfortunately, the statistics do not support this assumption. Notice the stark lack of statistics or supporting evidence anywhere in this article.
>“Oklahoma State University has a no-weapons policy.”
What good is that policy doing to actually prevent weapons from being brought onto campus? Will that policy stop someone at the edge of campus and disarm them? I certainly hope so.
>The first line of the rough draft of the resolution reads, “In the wake of recent campus shootings and the complexities involved in making our campus safer, OSU Faculty Council opposes any legislation allowing concealed-carry permits for 21-year-olds on state college campuses and extended concealed-carry permits to 18-year-olds.”
>The first line of the rough draft of the resolution reads, “In the wake of recent campus shootings and the complexities involved in making our campus safer, OSU Faculty Council opposes any legislation allowing concealed-carry permits for 21-year-olds on state college campuses and extended concealed-carry permits to 18-year-olds.”
Notice that no justification is made. They merely call to emotion by mentioning the recent campus shootings, but make no correlation between their opposition, and any real benefit. If asked, no doubt they would say “we promote safety”, but again fail to offer any evidence or statistics to back their claim. I’m still waiting for ANY such evidence.
>“I spoke with Capt. Atkins about whether students could handle guns,” she said. “He said the age group of 18-22, even if they have a concealed-carry permit, are not trained in ‘shoot-don’t shoot’ situations.”
The fact that they are students is irrelevant. They are people. If Captain Atkins believes that 18-22 year olds should not have these licenses due to a lack of training, then he needs to speak with the Stillwater Police Department, who issues these permits, about increasing the requirement and availability of such training.
>Hoffer said in situations where a student brought a gun to campus to harm someone and another student pulled his or her gun to protect other students, both had a chance of being shot when police arrived “Police would see two guns,” she said. “They would have to determine which one was the danger and both would probably be eliminated.”
Is this Heidi talking, or Captain Atkins? Does Heidi profess to be an expert on such matters? Has she deduced this opinion based on evidence, or is she just talking? Either way, it is a good point. Aside from the fact that it would most likely be over by the time they arrive, promoting a shoot-first, ask later mentality by police doesn’t help. This isn’t Hollywood, and imagining a fierce gun battle in which two shooters exchange rounds for minutes, emptying and swapping clips numerous times and diving to and from cover, only perpetuates ignorance. I’m not certain, but I think (and would hope) most police are either required to, or would, shout a warning (Freeze – Police – Drop your weapons – etc) before blindly opening fire on a chaotic situation.
>Lee Bird, vice president of student affairs, served on the State Regents Campus Life and Safety and Security task. She agreed that students trying to protect others could be harmed. “If you (a police officer) go into a room and see someone holding a gun,” Bird said, “You shoot them. Period.”
Again, does Bird have the expertise to make such blanket statements? Bird isn’t quoting a police officer here, but merely making a statement without citation whatsoever. Is Bird giving a command to police officers? Again, this promotes the idea that police should shoot first and ask later, and in my opinion, that doesn’t really promote a “culture of safety”. I would like to see the statute or police regulation on which Bird based this comment.
>Hargis said, “That’ll give you real incentive not to fail anybody.”
I don’t even understand what this means in context. What will give who incentive not to fail anybody? First of all, there should be no distinction between students, staff, or faculty. They’re all people, and equal citizens with equal rights.
>“There are groups forming on campus about this,” Bird said. “Mostly from students, pro and con, Mostly con, thankfully.”
I will say nothing of impartiality. On a purely factual level, however, I notice that no mention is given of any of these groups, nor is even a rough estimate made of the number of such groups on campus. A quick group search on facebook using the term “HB 2513” reveals 3 groups for, 1 against. A searching using “concealed” brings up 2 against….but pages and pages in support of concealed weapons on campuses. I’m not sure where Bird is getting this information, but I’d like to see it, because my own research (and I suggest you do your own) is proving Bird’s claims to be quite false.
I think it’s quite telling that the SGA drafted an opposition to the bill, and then ran a poll to support it, rather than waiting for the results of the poll to see whether an opposition was really the most popular opinion. If the poll shows that a majority support the bill, will the SGA draft a support for it? I certainly hope so, otherwise, they’re simply not representing the popular opinion.
With the obvious opposition to the HB 2513 by the O’Colly and Faculty Council, even before the results of the poll, I want to strike a conversational compromise by first presenting a hypothetical situation: Let’s assume that HB 2513 does not pass. What measures will OSU take to ensure compliance with the weapons ban? What steps will they take to ensure the safety of an unarmed student body against the possibility of a campus shooting like the recent tragedies in Illinois and Virginia? Is the official stance that a simple policy, and a few signs, will actually prevent weapons from being physically brought onto campus and used? In my opinion, in order to ensure such safety, the same steps must be taken here that have been taken at airports, courthouses and police stations to ensure compliance in those installations. I look forward to Lee Bird’s or President Hargis’ response to this question.
This whole article is ridiculous hoplophobic propaganda.
I especially like the bit about how 18-22 year olds supposedly don’t know when it’s time to shoot the pyscho bad guy, but apparently it’s okay for the police to just rush into a room and shoot whomever they please.
It sounds like this “no weapons policy” should be extended to the authorities as well if it is implemented. After all, if there’s a no weapons policy, obviously weapons won’t be needed to maintain order right?
Imagine, the continued removal of the responsibilities of adulthood on college students.
18-22 year old students are not able to decide in shoot or no shoot situations. As if your average patrolman is given a proper amount to training in active shooter response as it is. He should be barred from responding then on the grounds that he is not a SWAT officer.
18 years old is an adult, legally. He/she can sign contracts that are legally binding, serve in the armed forces and vote in general elections. But can he be trained in simple tactics and handgun marksmanship under stress, well, uhhhhhh, not likely.
A university is a place of learning. It would not be a large jump for a university to begin training students who were interested in the skills involved with tactical training. Involved with local law enforcement, taking advantage of the hundreds of thousands of veterans from the military, with the overabundance of hard won knowledge from the brightest minds in tactical training, certainly a very thorough course of instruction could be put together for students to train. Who better than a university to take the time and build the facilities and create a program to instill self defense and survival mindset into the students of America.
Judging by the outcome of the past few college shootings perpetrated by medicated maniacs, the chances of being shot by a policeman who mistook you for the gunman are slim, slim, slim… as a matter of fact, I still don’t see universities requiring mandatory classes in basic first aid, defensive driving, and self defense/personal security principles, though the university claims that it is preparing students for the world at large. At least then students would have a small idea of who commits school shootings, and the difference between cover and concealment not to mention how to apply pressure to a gunshot wound and deliver CPR.
Maybe you could also require these classes cover responding to a drowning victim, cause every year hundreds of young children die in bathtubs and swimming pools while the parents helplessly wait on 911 when if they had just a few hours training they could start resuscitation.
To hear a university list lack of knowledge as a reason not to attempt to solve a problem is a very weak position to take on an issue, comedic even.
As it were, at the very least the idea of arming and or training the faculty in the realities of these events and the tactics that could save lives should be contemplated. I’m sure I know a few private companies that would be more than willing to put together a custom training package tailored to the situation.
Burns Hargis’ “culture of safety” has gotten how many helpless students killed in the last few years? I find his slanderous assumption that students would threaten their instructors (”That’ll give you real incentive not to fail anybody.”) to be insulting and not borne out by the facts. There are hundreds of CCW holders at my campus, and if anyone were going to get threatened, we know where our professors live. Yet there has never been a case where professors have been threatened, either on or off campus. Mr. Hargis makes an emotional, fear-based assumption that is totally unfounded in the real world that the rest of us live in.
I find it funny that Heidi Hoffer and Captain Atkins can only come up with a “what-if” argument against students being able to protect themselves, especially since it has been proved that not only are the police only good to count the bodies in situations like this, but that a student with a concealed weapon stopped the massacre in Israel. And by the way, Captain Atkins, my CCW training tells me that if a guy is shooting at me, that’s a “shoot” situation; if a guy is not, that’s a “don’t shoot” situation. The fact is that CCW holders are five times LESS likely to break the law. Look up the facts before spouting off emotion-based rhetoric.
I also find it sadly amusing that Lee Bird, vice president of student affairs, has researched the laws of her state so little that she thinks that “If you (a police officer) go into a room and see someone holding a gun,you shoot them. Period.” A police officer who shoots someone merely because they are holding a weapon would very quickly find himself relieved of duty and charged with murder.
In my earlier post, I referred to the obvious opposition of the O’Colly… the views of one columnist do not reflect the views of the O’Colly as a whole, so I retract that statement. However, it is still clear that the SGA and Faculty Council oppose the bill, adn the rest of the comment still stands.
I can remember a time when Burns Hargis was considered a conservative. I am particularly fond of the complaints that the police aren’t going to know who the bad guy is, if anyone else is holding a gun. How long do you think the conceal carry person is going to be standing around after being forced to shoot before reconcealing his or her weapon? It is possible that a conceal carry person is still holding a gun when the police arrive and the police make a mistake and shoot an innocent conceal carry person, but how is that possibility worse than the almost certainty of being a murder victim if unarmed when the massacre begins.
“A police officer who shoots someone merely because they are holding a weapon would very quickly find himself relieved of duty and charged with murder.A police officer who shoots someone merely because they are holding a weapon would very quickly find himself relieved of duty and charged with murder.”
You might to do more research on the number of incidents of this nature in not just Oklahoma, but around the country. Guns should not be on campus. Period. I personally find attacking an administrator’s opinion (especially having never met with her) without thoroughly researching the matter yourself.
———————————————
“I spoke with Capt. Atkins about whether students could handle guns,” she said. “He said the age group of 18-22, even if they have a concealed-carry permit, are not trained in ‘shoot-don’t shoot’ situations.”
Hoffer said in situations where a student brought a gun to campus to harm someone and another student pulled his or her gun to protect other students, both had a chance of being shot when police arrived.
“Police would see two guns,” she said. “They would have to determine which one was the danger and both would probably be eliminated.”
———————————————
So, Captain Atkins believes that students should not be allowed firearms for self defense because they are not trained in “shoot-don’t shoot” situations.
Then he goes on to say that his officers, if they burst into a room where multiple people had weapons drawn, would not ask everyone to drop their weapons and only consider shooting those who do not comply, no, his officers would simply shoot them all. It sounds like neither Captain Atkins nor his officers are properly trained in “shoot-don’t shoot” situations.
Perhaps we need a new police force on campus.
—————————————–
Bird said the bill specifically prohibits faculty and staff from carrying concealed weapons on campus, even though it allows students with permits to do so.
Hargis said, “That’ll give you real incentive not to fail anybody.”
—————————————-
Wait a minute, what is being implied here? While I do agree that it is strange to allow students to carry and not faculty (especially considering you have to be 21 to apply for a concealed carry permit) I do not agree that faculty will be bullied into not failing students by this measue.
If a professor is worried about getting shot by a disgruntled student after final grades post, well, that possibility is just as valid right now and has absolutely no relevance to carrying on campus. That is, students with concealed carry permits are not the only ones who have the ability to shoot a professor because they are angry about grades. A student without a concealed carry permit could simply bring a concealed firearm to campus despite not having a permit. They wouldn’t care that they are breaking the law by carrying without a liscense, in fact, they are about to break the law in a much worse way which would make the former infraction quite trivial.
Now, if Hargis is implying that a student with a concealed carry permit would threaten a professor by making it known that he or she actually has a weapon on their person and intends to use it if they do not get what they want, well, that is illegal. Pulling a concealed weapon when you can not prove in a court of law that you were doing so because you felt your life was in imminent danger is called “brandishing.” If you flash your piece trivially, you are looking at a revocation of your liscence, and, depending on the situation, jail time. Doing so in part of threating an individual carries stiffer penalties.
So, I’m not quite sure how professors would feel unsafe, except that they would not be allowed to carry while students could.
President Hargis was quoted as saying, in response to faculty specifically being prohibited from carrying concealed weapons, “That’ll give you real incentive not to fail anybody.” The truth is that the bill does not prohibit faculty from carrying concealed weapons. What the bill did, in its original form, was give the university the authority to prohibit faculty from carrying concealed weapons. President Hargis can easily get around his problems with the bill by using his authority as university president to allow faculty to carry weapons just as the bill allows students to.
According to Heidi Hoffer, a questionable source whose only source of credibility is a her apparent interview of Capt. Atkins, “He said the age group of 18-22, even if they have a concealed-carry permit, are not trained in ‘shoot-don’t shoot’ situations.” First of all, this age group does not accurately reflect young concealed carry permit holders in Oklahoma because one must be at least 21 years old to qualify for the permit. Secondly, I cannot speak for the rest of the student body, but I personally received training on “shoot-don’t shoot situations” in Army Basic Training when I was only 18. I don’t really think it is fair to assume that someone does not understand weapons safety simply because of their age.
Capt. Atkins’s quote also assumes that armed citizens are incompetent with weapons, or at least less competent than police. While this may seem logical, it really is not true. Shooting enthusiasts often spend large amounts of time at shooting ranges because it is something they enjoy, whereas it is not hard to imagine the majority of police officers spending no more than the minimum time required by their job. Even in my own military experience, I was only required to shoot at a range once or twice a year to qualify with a rifle, and I have spent virtually no time at a pistol range.
Lee Bird’s statement, “If you (a police officer) go into a room and see someone holding a gun you shoot them. Period,” is also flawed. Police are already trained to deal with armed individuals out of uniform, namely undercover officers and off-duty officers. A police officer is trained to stop a violent situation with the minimum loss of life, and therefore will not shoot at a person, even if that person has a weapon, unless that person is posing an imminent threat, such as pointing the weapon at police or civilians.
I appreciate the attention the O’Colly has given HB 2513 and the issue of concealed weapons on college campuses, however I wish that the reporters would take more care to find credible sources from both sides of the issue before printing an article, especially in an issue as divisive as this one.
Will college administrators and board members waive all civil protection afforded them by their positions in the event that students are injured and/or killed in an on campus shooting? If you are going to deny students and faculty the right to defend themselves and create a gun free “killing zone”, should you not be willing to place all that you have on the line to cover the lawsuits that will ensue?
Ah, but that isn’t how the chain of liability works. If administrators allowed guns to be carried on campus then they would be ultimately responsible for any accidental discharges, if any. That’s not a risk administrators are willing to take. However, if administrators ban guns on their campus, even if they don’t enforce those bans, they are cleared from responsibility for an on-campus shooting because the shooter took the responsibility on himself when he broke the standing rule. That is why lifting the ban on weapons on college campuses must be done at the state level or higher. If administrators are given the choice they will pick the safe route and ban guns every time, wether or not they have the ability to enforce such a ban.
“Nothing contained in this subsection shall be construed to limit authority of any public college of university in this state to establish a policy or rule that restricts or prohibits faculty members or employed personnel who have a concealed handgun license from possessing, carrying, or storing a concealed handgun on college or university property.”
-Oklahoma House Bill 2513
It sounds to me like Pres. Hargis himself would have to establish a policy restricting concealed handguns for faculty. If he really thinks “That’ll give you real incentive not to fail anybody” then he has no one to blame but himself.
I understand the University’s liability concerns. However, I think that those who can get concealed handgun permits will have the training needed to be trusted on campus with those handguns. The risk of having an insane shooter roam for more than a few minutes gunning down unarmed students is greater than that posed by sane, trained, concealed handgun carriers. Even if students got caught in crossfire, I think that fewer would be hurt by that than an unchecked gunman.