Campuses and Guns - Generation Progress

Title Goes Here
Subtitle goes here
Authors go here
Campuses and Guns
A Multilateral Approach to Gun Violence Prevention
1 Sheila
Center forE.American
| Factsheet
Title
By
Isong Progress and Jessica
Morales
March 2015
CONTENTS
Title GoesIntroduction
Here
and Summary
Subtitle goes here
Gun Violence on College Campuses
Authors go here
Campus Carry
Universal Background Checks
Militarization of Campus Police
Recommendations
Conclusion
About the Authors
Acknowledgement
End Notes
2 2 Generation
Progress
Campuses
and Guns:
Center for American
Progress | Factsheet
TitleA Multilateral Approach to Gun Violence Prevention
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
Each year, about 33,000 Americans are killed with guns. In 2010, 54 percent
of those murdered were under the age of 30.1 Gun-related deaths are rapidly
rising and if this alarming trend continues, by the end of 2015, the number
of gun deaths by a firearm of Americans under the age of 26 will surpass
the number of deaths of young people caused by car accidents.2 There is a
national gun violence crisis that is affecting our youth, and young people on
college campuses around the country are no exception to this epidemic.
Amidst the national gun violence prevention debate is an ongoing discussion
about the protection of America’s youth and the roles that college campuses
and universities play in protecting their students. The widely televised campus
shootings that have occurred over the last decade are usually what come
to mind when individuals think about college campuses and guns. One of
the deadliest college shootings to date occurred on April 16, 2007 at Virginia
Tech, when a gunman shot and killed 32 students and faculty members and
wounded another 17 individuals in two separate attacks on the same day.3
Although colleges and universities report significantly lower crime rates than
national averages, gunmen have killed 30 people in mass campus shootings
since the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, highlighting the need for smarter gun
violence prevention policies and response strategies.4
Institutions of higher education aim to provide valuable educational
opportunities for individuals who wish to pursue them. They are expected to
promote safe educational spaces that enhance one’s professional repertoire
and fine-tune one’s ability to think critically, solve problems, and create
concrete solutions. At the same time, institutions are tasked with keeping
students safe.
This report will discuss the implications of gun violence on college campuses
and universities while examining the roles that local and state governments,
as well as the federal government, play in gun violence prevention. In
addition, it will outline grassroots and grass-tops solutions that promote locallevel organizing and work to significantly decrease gun violence on college
campuses and universities across the country.
GUN VIOLENCE ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES
Although gun violence disproportionately affects college-aged youth, it is
less common on college and university campuses than in the rest of country.5
College campus homicide rates are reported at about one death per one
million people (students), compared to 57 deaths per million around the
country.6 Despite these seemingly low rates of campus shootings, targeted
3 Generation Progress
Campuses and Guns: A Multilateral Approach to Gun Violence Prevention
violence (which refers to cases in which an attacker selects a specific victim
or victims prior to the shooting) has substantially increased over the last two
decades.
There were 40 incidents of targeted violence on college campuses in the
1980’s, compared to 79 in the 1990’s, and 83 between 2000 and 2010.7 When
targeted violence does occur on college campuses, perpetrators often use
a gun. Guns were used in approximately half of college campus homicides
between 1989 and 2001, and guns were used in 54 percent of targeted
violence incidents reported in compliance with the Clery Act between 2005
and 2008.8
Thirty-six percent of college campus attacks between 2005 and 2008 took
place in administrative, academic, or services buildings.11 28 percent took
place in residential buildings, while 27 percent took place in campus parking
lots or on campus grounds.12 This implicates over 90 percent of college
campus attacks and indicates a risk of gun violence at both on- and off-campus
sites.
The Clery Act is a federal
statute that requires all
colleges and universities
that receive federal
financial aid to record and
disclose information to the
Department of Education,
or DOE, about crime on
and near their campuses.9
Compliance is monitored by
the DOE, which can impose
civil fines up to $35,000 per
violation and can even
suspend institutions from
participating in federal
financial aid programs.10
Additionally, research indicates that current or former students, or adults with
employment or another relationship within the school, usually perpetrate
gun violence on college campuses.13 According to “Campus Attacks: Targeted
Violence Affecting Institutions of Higher Education,” subjects with no affiliation
with the affected college or university committed only 9 percent of targeted
assaults.14 With a trend clearly established, colleges and universities could
be doing more to better support the needs of current students, faculty,
administration, and other campus-affiliated persons.
While campus shootings are often the most visible and widely reported
forms of on-campus violence, guns also pose a significant risk at colleges and
universities in regards to student suicides. In 2010, homicide and suicide
were the second and third leading causes of death for people aged 15 to
24.15
Eighty-five percent of suicides attempted with guns are fatal and nearly
7 percent of individuals aged 18 to 25 have had serious thoughts of
suicide, compared to 3.9 percent of individuals aged 26 to 49.16 18
percent of undergraduate college students have considered suicide.17
Due to the fact that 24,000 college students attempt suicide each year
and suicide attempts with firearms are significantly more likely to be
fatal, it can be concluded that gun-aided suicides are more likely than
any other type of suicide.18
On December 10, 2014, advocacy groups Everytown for Gun Safety and
4 Generation Progress
Campuses and Guns: A Multilateral Approach to Gun Violence Prevention
Figure 1
Moms Demand Action released a report, titled “Analysis of School Shootings,”
highlighting at least 94 school shootings that have happened since the tragic
school massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT in
2012.19 These 94 school shootings occurred in 33 states and included
fatal and nonfatal assaults, suicides, and unintentional shootings at an
average of nearly one shooting per week.20 They resulted in 45 deaths
and 78 non-fatal gunshot injuries.21 In 32 percent of these shootings, at
least one person died.22 In 68 percent of these incidents, the perpetrator(s)
intentionally assaulted or killed another individual with a gun.23 Of these,
35 percent resulted in at least one homicide.24 In addition, the report
found that of these 94 school shootings, 45 took place on a college or
university campus.25 In more than one-third of all incidents, at least one
person was shot after an argument or confrontation escalated and a gun
was nearby.26
While these shootings do not always make it to the front page of your
newspaper, they are occurring at a greater rate than they have in the past
and one cannot ignore that there has been an increase of gun violence on
college campuses that needs to be addressed and dealt with carefully and
effectively.27
CAMPUS CARRY
Concealed carry (also known as carrying a concealed weapon) is generally the
practice of carrying a weapon in a concealed manner while in public. Every
state in the United States now allows concealed carry for citizens meeting
specific requirements, although states vary widely on how the permit systems
are administered.28 For example, four states—Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, and
Wyoming—do not require a permit to carry a concealed gun in a public
arena.29 In those states, any lawful gun owner may carry concealed, loaded
firearms in public “without any oversight from local law enforcement to
determine whether the individual has had appropriate firearms training or
whether there is anything in their criminal or personal history to indicate they
may pose a risk to public safety,” according to a Center for American Progress
report.30
Guns are generally prohibited on most college and university campuses. 20
states explicitly ban carrying concealed weapons on campuses (“campus
carry”) while 23 leave the decision to individual institutions.31 Seven states
have provisions in place that allow campus carry.32 These states include:
Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah, and Wisconsin.33
In 2013, at least 19 states introduced campus carry legislation, and while
5 Center
Generation
Progress
Campuses
and Guns:
for American
Progress | Factsheet
TitleA Multilateral Approach to Gun Violence Prevention
Figure 2
laws only passed in Arkansas and Kansas, the sheer number of states willing
to entertain this conversation shows an increase in momentum from pro-gun
activists.34 The Arkansas law has been deemed a compromise law
because it allows institutions to opt out of allowing campus carry
by creating their own gun policies.35 Since the passing of the law,
every two- and four-year institution in the state has since opted out
of campus carry, indicating that public colleges and universities in
Arkansas do not want guns on their campuses.36
University of Arkansas at Little Rock chancellor Joel Anderson stated
in 2013 that, “none of the presidents and chancellors thought
it would make their campuses safer,” adding that “If you’ve got
more guns on campus…you create a much more complicated
environment for law enforcement to function in, and then…you increase the
odds…that a gun will be used…to wound or kill innocent people.”37 Calvin
Johnson, chancellor of the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff also noted in
2013 the results of an informal survey of faculty which found that the majority
opposed campus carry.38
Figure 3
Explicitly ban campus carry
Leave decision to individual institutions
Have legislation pending
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures
In October 2014, Dr. Stephen K. Boss, one of the faculty leaders opposing
campus carry at the University of Arkansas, stated that he was pleased that
for the second consecutive year, every college in Arkansas chose to “continue
the long-standing prohibition of lethal weapons on campus.39 It shows our
governing boards understand that our colleges are not magnets for murderers,
but sanctuaries from them.”40
As of February 2015, lawmakers in 15 states are pushing bills to allow campus
carry.41 Those states include: Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Montana,
Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.42 Proponents of campus carry argue
that policies that permit these kinds of laws make campuses safer due to their
deterrent effect, while opponents argue that they increase the likelihood of
gun violence and threaten educational environments. Increasing the number
of guns at colleges and universities has the potential to create an unsafe living
and learning environment and impose substantial monetary costs, both in
increased security costs and insurance premiums.43
The Costs Of Campus Carry
The increased costs facing institutions have most recently been displayed in
Idaho. Five of Idaho’s universities and community colleges have thus far spent
more than $1.5 million to enhance security on campuses after campus carry
was approved by the state legislature in 2014.44 The schools will likely have
to absorb the cost from existing allocations and they expect total costs to top
$3.7 million for the year.45
6 Generation
Progress
Campuses
and Guns:
6 Center
for American
Progress | Factsheet
TitleA Multilateral Approach to Gun Violence Prevention
The five schools—Boise State University, Idaho State University, the University
of Idaho, the College of Western Idaho, and North Idaho College—sought
$1.55 million from the state for expenses already incurred, and an additional
$2.7 million for the rest of the school year.46 The costs include expenses for
personnel, training, and equipment.47 The institutions have had to hire new
staff, pay for additional training, and purchase new equipment.48 Because
the state’s governor did not include additional funding in the state’s budget
and the legislature is not likely to add any, the schools will have to absorb the
costs.49 This could mean less money being spent on students at a time when
investment per student in Idaho by the state legislature has decreased per fulltime student (per year) by $3,766 since 2007.50
$1.5 million
Additionally, according to fiscal analysis developed by Texas’ higher education
systems, “campus carry would cost the University of Texas and University
of Houston systems nearly $47 million combined over 6 years to update
security systems, build gun storage facilities, and bolster campus police
units,” according to reporting by the Houston Chronicle.51 The campus police
departments would have to spend millions on the installation of gun safes and
lockers, training for staff and on-campus security, and additional administrative
personnel.52 Additionally, colleges and universities could see a rise in insurance
costs if campus carry was implemented on their campuses.53 In 2011, the
was spent by five universities and
Houston Community College Board of Trustees estimated insurance costs
community colleges in Idaho to
rising as much as $900,000 per year if campus carry was passed.54 Campus
enhance campus security after
carry would make administrations stretch budgets and force schools to spend
campus carry was approved.
more on overhead, rather than individualized education.
Lack Of Support Of Campus Carry
There is clear evidence showing higher education communities do not support
campus carry.55 In a recent study by Ball State University, 95 percent of college
presidents who responded to the study oppose campus carry. In addition,
presidents of 370 colleges and universities in 41 states have signed a pledge
to keep guns off their campuses.56 This includes 240 four-year colleges and
universities and 130 community colleges.57 The American Association of State
Colleges and Universities also opposes allowing campus carry.58 Additionally,
in a 2013 poll of faculty members at 15 randomly selected colleges in Ohio,
Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin (three were chosen from each state),
94 percent opposed campus carry.59 “82 percent said they would feel less
safe if faculty, students, and visitors were allowed to carry guns,” reported the
Columbus Dispatch.60
The movement against campus carry extends beyond administrations and
associations. According to research by Ball State University, 78 percent of
7 Generation
Progress
Campuses
and Guns:
7 Center
for American
Progress | Factsheet
TitleA Multilateral Approach to Gun Violence Prevention
midwestern college students oppose campus carry and would not obtain
a campus carry license if they were permitted.61 66 percent of students
surveyed stated that carrying a gun would not make them feel safer
from attacks.62 In addition, the International Association of Campus Law
Enforcement Administrators, Inc. (“IACLEA”) issued a statement in 2008 saying,
“IACLEA Board of directors believes ‘conceal carry’ initiatives do not make
campuses safer. There is no credible evidence to suggest that the presence of
students carrying concealed weapons would reduce violence on our college
campuses.”63 In a 2009 study at the University of Toledo, Ohio, research found
that 86 percent of the police chiefs surveyed believed that allowing campus
carry would not prevent some or all of campus killings.64
Students, survivors, and administrators have all gotten involved as the campus
carry debate has erupted in the state of Texas, where hearings are being
conducted to lift bans on campus carry in university campuses (SB 11).65 Colin
Goddard, who was shot four times during the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting
asked the Texas state legislature not to use the Virginia Tech tragedy to justify
campus carry bills.66 He stated, “We survivors do not think that it is a good
idea to have guns on campus…and there is no evidence that a bill like [this]
would do anything to stop a mass shooting.”67 He also noted that the bill
would likely make campus environments more dangerous than they already
are—a sentiment that was echoed by University of Texas System Chancellor
William McRaven.68
In a letter to the Texas state legislature, Chancellor McRaven, a retired fourstar Admiral, mentioned a great concern regarding the presence of handguns
on campus, noting that he has received calls from students, faculty, staff,
law enforcement, and mental health professionals all raising concerns about
campus carry.69 He also cited concern that the passing of SB 11 will potentially
lead to an increase in both accidental shootings and self-inflicted wounds.70
“
We survivors do
not think that it is a
good idea to have
guns on campus…
and there is no
evidence that a bill
like [this] would do
anything to stop a
mass shooting.
More Guns Does Not Mean More Protection
The assumption that guns used defensively on college campuses would
make the community safer is not necessarily true. A frequently cited study
argued that millions of gun owners successfully use their weapons to defend
themselves from criminals; however, recent research has proven this to be
untrue.71 The study purported, for instance, that guns were used in selfdefense in 845,000 burglaries; however, reliable victimization surveys show
that there were fewer than 1.3 million burglaries where someone was in the
home at the time of the crime and only 33 percent of these had occupants
who were not sleeping.72 The survey also suggests that 42 percent of
households owned firearms at the time of the survey, so even if burglars
8 Generation
Progress
Campuses
and Guns:
8 Center
for American
Progress | Factsheet
TitleA Multilateral Approach to Gun Violence Prevention
”
- Virginia Tech shooting
survivor Colin Goddard
only rob homes of gun owners, and those gun owners use their weapons in
self-defense every single time they are awake, the 845,0000 statistic is simply
mathematically impossible.73
Guns as a means of protection has also been brought up recently in relation
to alarming campus sexual assault statistics that indicate that 1 in 5 women
and 1 in 16 men are sexually assaulted during their time in college.75 Some
lawmakers around the country are pushing to arm college students with
firearms in order to protect them against sexual assault. An example of
this would be House Bill 1143 in Indiana, where state legislators are urging
individuals to support the bill in order to decrease campus sexual assault.76
The bill would allow licensed gun owners to carry their weapons on public
university campuses.77 If passed, the bill would affect 29 public campuses in
Indiana.78
This piece of legislation has already received pushback from campus
administrators around the state.79 A spokesperson for Indiana University
Bloomington stated that “Indiana University has opposed allowing guns on
campus in the past and our position has not changed.”80 Purdue University,
which already bans weapons on campus, remains steadfastly against
legislation that would allow for campus carry.81 Purdue’s police chief has
spoken out against the legislation, noting that if passed, it would negatively
impact the dynamics of the campus community and complicate the ability of
police to respond to situations in which multiple people could be armed.82
1 in 5 women
will be sexually assaulted during
their time in college.
More importantly, legislation such as this would not necessarily stop a
perpetrator from committing sexual violence on campus.83 In an American
Journal of Public Health study, researchers interviewed 417 women, and
only 7 percent had used a gun successfully in self-defense.84 Know Your IX,
a national survivor-run, student-driven campaign to end campus sexual
violence made it clear that gun lobbyists and lawmakers have built legislation
based on the classic rape myth that a woman’s greatest threat is a stranger
lurking in the bushes late at night.85 In actuality, women (and individuals of
other genders) are most in danger while with someone they know.86 Know
Your IX’s Dana Bolger and Alexandra Brodsky explain, “studies demonstrate
that the vast majority of campus victims were raped by a partner, friend, or
close acquaintance” and guns are the most commonly used weapon in the
murders of intimate partners.87 More often than not, when a gun is in a home,
the threat of violence against women by intimate partners appear to be more
common than self-defense uses of guns by women.88
9 Generation
Progress
Campuses
and Guns:
9 Center
for American
Progress | Factsheet
TitleA Multilateral Approach to Gun Violence Prevention
UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS
Universal background checks would ensure that every individual in the United
States who attempts to purchase a gun would have to go through a thorough
and vetted background analysis before they were allowed to purchase said
gun. Current federal law only requires licensed gun dealers to conduct
background checks prior to completing a gun sale.89 This requirement,
however, does not apply to private individuals selling guns who are not
dealers.90 If universal background checks were federal law, they would provide
a solid and in-depth foundational protection against gun violence.
Currently, 17 states and the District of Columbia have extended background
check requirements beyond federal laws to at least some private sales;
however, Congress has failed to act in this matter on the federal level.91 A
survey by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 84 percent of criminals
who had used a gun in a crime reported that they were prohibited from using
them at the time of their gun crime.92 This indicates that these individuals
would not have been able to legally pass a background check, which would
have prohibited them from obtaining the guns they used to conduct their
crimes.
Figure 4
Between 80 and 90 percent of Americans, including most gun owners, support
expanding background checks.93 A universal background check law might
have prevented one of the deadliest campus shootings of all time—Virginia
Tech. The president of the National Rifle Association (“NRA”) even stated, “The
one shooter that might have been prevented by background checks and was
not was the Virginia Tech shooter because he had, in fact, been adjudicated
to be potentially violent.”94 Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people and injured
another 17 in 2007 was deemed mentally ill by a judge, which is one of the
criteria used to disqualify certain individuals from legally purchasing guns.95
Cho apparently slipped through the cracks, as he was able to purchase two
and the District of Columbia have
weapons.96 A strict universal background check law could have stopped his
97
extended background check
purchase before he was able to commit his crimes.
requirements.
17 states
MILITARIZATION OF CAMPUS POLICE
As instances of gun violence on campuses increase, some have called to
further arm campus police to respond to violent attacks, just as others
have called for campus carry. Since 1998, the Department of Defense has
transferred hundreds of pieces of military equipment (weaponry included) to
at least 124 colleges and universities across the United States.98 The federal
program, known as the 1033 Program, transfers military surplus to law
10 Center
Generation
for American
Progress
Progress Campuses
| Factsheet
and Guns:
Title
A Multilateral Approach to Gun Violence Prevention
enforcement agencies, and this has included campuses across the nation.99
Some of the equipment delivered includes: assault rifles, grenade launchers,
and ambush-protected vehicles.100
The 1033 Program aims to assist departments (particularly those with
limited budgets) obtain “necessary” equipment at low costs. But, this begs
the question, what is necessary equipment to keep college and university
communities safe? Are college campuses any place for military-level
equipment? Proponents argue that there are very specific instances in which
the equipment would be utilized, such as active shooter scenarios, like the
incident at Virginia Tech.101 Ohio State University spokesman Dan Hedman
has stated that the 1033 program “is a valuable supplement to campus safety
efforts.”102 Florida International University’s police chief Alexander Casas
said that the program helps the police better address community needs.103
However, in response to the active shooter defense, these types of dangerous
weapons would likely not have been necessary to contain the shooter at
Virginia Tech. In that instance, and those like it, violence occurs within minutes
and by the time police arrive with any form of weaponry, the incident will likely
be over.104
Furthermore, the proliferation of these types of weapons will not combat
the types of crimes that occur on a daily basis at colleges and universities.105
College campuses have high instances of alcohol-related crimes and sexual
assault, and dangerous military equipment is not required to combat or
contain these sorts of crimes.106
In response to questions as to why the University of Central Florida needs
a grenade launcher, campus police have stated for “security and crowd
control.”107 But students across the country have been in uproar about the
militarization of campus police and many argue that the presence of such
weaponry promotes violence and leaves colleges and universities feeling
uptight and under constant surveillance.108 Others have noted that they do
not promote free expression.109
In response to
questions as to why
the University of
Central Florida needs
Police are already under intense scrutiny for unnecessary uses of force, a lack
a grenade launcher,
of accountability for the killing of unarmed black youth across the country, and campus police have
the militarized response of certain police departments when demonstrators
stated for
have taken to the streets. In Ferguson, MO, for example, images of police
security and crowd
officers wearing camouflage uniforms, driving in armored vehicles, and
control.
110
“
carrying military-grade guns against largely peaceful demonstrators begged
the question: what weaponry is necessary to ensure that citizens and college
students are safe?111 The 1033 Program has also received newly infused
for American
Progress | Factsheet
Title
11 Center
Generation
Progress
Campuses
and Guns:
A Multilateral Approach to Gun Violence Prevention
”
scrutiny since these events.112
In Indiana, there is an ongoing debate raging on about the necessity of highgrade military weapons. At least five Indiana universities have armed their
officers with military-style weapons.113 Community and campus police in
Indiana have obtained more than 4,400 items since 2010.114 Campus police
have obtained: body armor, military vehicles, and M-14 and M-16 rifles—akin
to the kind that were used in the Vietnam War.115 But opinions about the
necessity of these types of weaponry may be changing. Purdue University
Calumet police chief Anthony Martin has said, “Particularly after we have just
read about Ferguson, I have been re-evaluating the need of an M-14, it’s a
heavy weapon.”116
Weapons such as M-14 military rifles have blurred the lines between campus
police and the military. Military forces are trained to fight the enemy and
wreak havoc on them, while civilian police departments are dealing with
individuals with constitutional rights.117 The goal is to avoid using force (if
possible) and to use the minimum required to bring a suspect to the court
of law.118 Purdue University Calumet Police Chief Martin stated, “On college
campuses, police roles are even more narrowly defined: police are there to
protect students and faculty.”119
Recently, Congressman Hank Johnson (D-GA), re-introduced the bipartisan
“Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2015” (H.R. 1232) in order to place
restrictions and transparency measures on the 1033 Program.120 This bill, if
passed, would also place restrictions on the types of weapons that could be
transferred to college and university campuses.121
“
I have been
re-evaluating the
need of an M-14,
it’s a heavy weapon.
- Purdue University Calument
police chief Anthony Martin
Highly evolved military equipment used by the police are affecting police
and community relations, and the increase of this military gear on college
campuses can only lead to a more tense campus community.122 While gun
violence on campus has increased, the response should not be to further arm
police with equipment used in war-inflicted combat zones.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In light of the increases of gun violence on college and university communities
around the country, the Obama administration, Congress, state legislatures,
and campus administrations should consider the following actions.
Ban Campus Carry
Campus carry laws that permit students to carry weapons in a hidden manner
while in public have no place on college and university campuses. Most states
12 Generation
Progress
Campuses
and Guns:
A Multilateral Approach to Gun Violence Prevention
12 Center
for American
Progress | Factsheet
Title
”
require individuals to obtain permits in order to carry concealed weapons,
indicating that there should be a system to check those individuals who make
this choice. Guns are generally prohibited on college campuses, as 22 states
ban campus carry; however, 23 states leave this decision up to individual
institutions.
Access to guns on college campuses provides an avenue to inflict violence in
a way that lack of access cannot. Once a gun is brought into the equation, an
argument can transform from a simple verbal altercation to a nonsensical act
of violence. Disallowing campus carry would decrease this possibility. The
general public has also voiced their opinion on campus carry in some states.
A January 2014 poll of Georgia voters found that 78 percent opposed campus
carry legislation.123
Students, college presidents, and various associations have made it clear
that they do not want guns on their campuses. Guns used in self-defense
are not proven to be a deterrence to crime and campus carry has increased
the expenses of some colleges and universities, which could mean less
money being spent on students. In order for colleges and universities to
provide the safest possible environment for higher education learning,
college administrations across the country should ban campus carry on their
campuses.
Pass Universal Background Checks
Universal background checks would ultimately provide a safer campus
environment for everyone involved. They would provide a thorough vetting
process for anyone seeking a gun, which would put a stop to crime before
it happens. If a universal background check law was instituted and properly
administered, the Virginia Tech massacre may have been stopped when the
perpetrator attempted to legally obtain his gun. He was deemed mentally
of Georgia voters oppose campus
ill—one of the categories that disqualifies one from purchasing firearms—and
carry legislation.
therefore would have been prohibited from purchasing guns.
78%
Universal background checks would also make it easier to catch individuals
attempting to obtain guns through illegal tactics and provide a strong
deterrence to these same individuals. Data shows that a disproportionate
number of individuals who are convicted for gun crimes were prohibited from
using guns in the first place. These repeat offenders would likely be usurped
from committing further crimes if universal background checks were in place.
To effectively curb the increase of guns on college campuses, background
checks should be required for all gun sales.
for American
Progress | Factsheet
Title
13 Center
Generation
Progress
Campuses
and Guns:
A Multilateral Approach to Gun Violence Prevention
Universal background checks would lead to safer campuses and communities.
In the simplest of terms, requiring background checks for all sales is the only
way to prevent prohibited or dangerous individuals from buying guns, no
questions asked. While this type of federal legislation may not have been able
to prevent some of the most well-known campus shootings to date, universal
background check legislation would have made it more difficult for some of
the perpetrators of campus violence to obtain guns.
Repeal 1033
In the past few years, there has been a sudden increase in the amount of
military-grade weaponry on college and university campuses. Most of these
weapons have been transferred through the federal program known as
1033. Numerous institutions have cited budgetary concerns and campus
safety issues as reasons for their interest in these weapons; however, a higher
education institution of learning is no place for these kinds of weaponry.
Military-grade weapons promote an environment that is tense, untrustworthy,
and rigid. They do not work to combat the day-to-day crimes that may occur
on a college campus. They also are not fit to prevent active shooter situations,
and in most instances, would arrive too late to make a difference if they were
deployed. Military-grade weapons should be taken off college and university
campuses.
Gun Violence Prevention Policies
The federal government will need to work in conjunction with state
governments to create effective policies that combat gun violence on college
campuses. This may even extend to local governments and college campus
decision-making bodies, all of whom will need to prioritize gun violence
prevention if there is going to be a decrease of such violence on campuses
across the country.
Initiatives outlined by President Obama’s 2013 gun violence reduction plan,
including actively promoting gun violence prevention research, providing
school public safety officers with training for active shooter situations, and
disseminating a model for developing and implementing reliable emergency
plans and security assessments are examples of federal assistance that could
spearhead a national gun violence prevention campaign.124
Regardless of federal and state legislation, colleges and universities should
take every measure to implement policies and procedures that minimize the
likelihood of gun violence on campus. Institutions of higher education are
unique environments that necessitate different prevention and response
14 Center
Generation
for American
Progress
Progress Campuses
| Factsheet
and Guns:
Title
A Multilateral Approach to Gun Violence Prevention
strategies from their K-12 counterparts. College and university campuses are
often larger, with campuses spawning acres. They consist of larger classrooms,
a separate faculty, varying student schedules, and more minimal studentfaculty contact.
Colleges and universities are diverse in size, location, demographics, and
governance, making it impossible to generate a singular model for security.
Thus, focused research is necessary to create prevention and response
strategies that properly address campus needs. An effective gun violence
prevention model for a large state public institution in Pennsylvania will differ
greatly from the model that will be most effective in a small yet sprawling
private institution in New York. Both universities would offer unique
challenges that have to be considered when determining gun violence
prevention policies. Despite this, it is imperative that federal, state, and local
governance work in tangent with individual collegiate administrative bodies
for gun violence prevention policies to make substantial improvements.
CONCLUSION
Do guns have any place on college and university campuses? Should campus carry
be permitted? Would universal background checks prevent campus shooters from
going rogue? Are high-grade military weapons necessary to keep campuses safe?
A number of these questions have been analyzed, researched, and explored
by those who want college students to obtain a degree in the safest possible
environment. Guns being permitted in a concealed manner on campus does
not make anyone on campuses feel safer and would not help in active shooter
situations. Universal background checks would provide another checkpoint
to curb the proliferation of guns on campuses. High-grade, military-styled
weaponry makes campuses feel tense and rigid without improving safety.
In order to provide college students with the safest possible environments,
federal and state governments need to put students’ safety and needs first.
Satisfying pro-gun advocates that cite disproven defensive gun law theory in
order to further promote their larger political agenda is no longer acceptable.
Students deserve better. They deserve to study, live, and grow on safe
campuses and young people will not sit silent as outside interests attempt to
speak for them.
15 Generation
Progress
Campuses
and Guns:
A Multilateral Approach to Gun Violence Prevention
15 Center
for American
Progress | Factsheet
Title
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Sheila E. Isong is the Policy Manager for Generation Progress, where her
research focuses on higher education/student debt, voting rights, and gun
violence prevention. She hails from the great state of Maryland and is a proud
Nigerian-American. Prior to joining the Generation Progress team, she served
as the legal and public policy advocate at the National Black Justice Coalition,
where she proposed short- and long-range public policy initiatives that
advanced civil rights enforcement inclusive of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender, or LGBT, community. She provides a wealth of experiences that
were cultivated through the National Black Law Students Association, AFL-CIO,
Center for Community Change, and U.S. Student Association.
Isong graduated magna cum laude from the University of Pittsburgh Honors
College with a bachelor’s degree in politics and philosophy, and she holds a
J.D. from Howard University School of Law. She is a proud member of Delta
Sigma Theta Sorority Inc. and holds memberships within the National Bar
Association and American Bar Association.
Jessica Morales is a Policy Advocate for Generation Progress. She is from the
great state of Texas where she graduated from the University of Texas at Austin
with her undergraduate degree in government and political communications.
Jessi began her career in policy by campaigning for local El Paso elections,
and working on issues concerning the Department of Defense and Veteran’s
Affairs as a Congressional intern for Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX). Prior to joining
the Generation Progress team, Jessi worked as a policy consultant for the Texas
State Teacher’s Association.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Sarah Audelo for her assistance in preparing
this report.
16 Center
Generation
for American
Progress
Progress Campuses
| Factsheet
and Guns:
Title
A Multilateral Approach to Gun Violence Prevention
END NOTES
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Injury
Prevention & Control: Data & Statistics (WISQARS),
available at http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.
html (last accessed March 2015).
2
The Economist, “Americans and their cars - Bangers
v bullets,” The Economist Newspaper Limited,
January 10, 2015, available at http://www.economist.
com/news/united-states/21638140-gun-now-morelikely-kill-you-car-bangers-v-bullets.
3
American Psychiatric Association, “APA Urges
Media to Stop Graphic Cho Materials,” Press
release, April 20, 2007, available at http://web.
archive.org/web/20070613234302/http://
www.psych.org/news_room/press_releases/0725OpenLetteronChoMaterials.pdf.
4
Libby Nelson, “Mass shootings on campus are
getting more common and more deadly,” Vox,
May 26, 2014, available at http://www.vox.
com/2014/5/26/5750768/mass-shootings-oncampus-are-getting-more-common-and-more-deadly.
5
Chelsea Parsons, Anne Johnson, “Young Guns:
How Gun Violence is Devastating the Millennial
Generation” (Washington: Center for American
Progress, 2014), available at http://cdn.
americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/
CAP-Youth-Gun-Violence-report.pdf.
6
Daily Editorial Board, “Carrying guns won’t make
for a safer campus,” Minnesota Daily, March 26,
2014, available at http://www.mndaily.com/
opinion/editorials/2014/03/25/carrying-gunswon%E2%80%99t-make-safer-campus.
7
Washington Post Editors, “Targeted violence up at
college campuses,” Washington Post, April 16, 2010,
available at http://voices.washingtonpost.com/localbreaking-news/targeted-violence-up-a-college.html.
8
Diana A. Drysdale, William Modzeleski, and Andre B.
Simons, “Campus Attacks: Targeted Violence Affecting
Institutions of Higher Education” (Washington:
United States Secret Service, Department of
Education, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2010),
available at http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/
campus-attacks.pdf.
9
Jeanne Clery Act Information, “About The Jeanne
Clery Act,” available at http://www.cleryact.info/
clery-act.html (last accessed March 2015).
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid.
13
APA Panel of Experts Report, “Gun Violence:
Prediction, Prevention, and Policy,” (Washington:
American Psychological Association, 2013), available
at http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/gunviolence-report.pdf.
14
Drysdale, Modzeleski, and Simons, “Campus
1
Attacks.”
15
Parsons and Johnson, “Young Guns: How Gun
Violence is Devastating the Millennial Generation.”
16
Rebecca A. Clay, “Preventing Suicide on College
Campuses,” SAMHSA News, March/April 2011, p. 4.
David Skorton and Glenn Altschuler, “Do We Really
Need More Guns On Campus?” Forbes, February
21, 2013, available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/
collegeprose/2013/02/21/guns-on-campus/.
17
Ibid.
18
The Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus, “More
Guns – More Gun Deaths and Injuries,” available at
http://keepgunsoffcampus.org/moreguns.html (last
accessed March 2015).
19
Everytown For Gun Safety, “Analysis of School
Shootings: December 15, 2012 – December
9, 2014,” available at http://everytown.org/
documents/2014/10/analysis-of-school-shootings.pdf
(last accessed March 2015).
20
Ibid.
21
Ibid.
22
Ibid.
23
Ibid.
24
Ibid.
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid.
27
Washington Post Editors, “Targeted violence up at
college campuses,” Washington Post, April 16, 2010,
available at http://voices.washingtonpost.com/localbreaking-news/targeted-violence-up-a-college.html.
28
Arkadi Gerney and Chelsea Parsons, “License to Kill
– How Lax Concealed Carry Laws Can Combine with
Stand Your Ground Laws to Produce Deadly Results”
(Washington: Center for American Progress, 2013),
available at https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/09/StandYrGround.pdf.
29
Ibid.
30
Ibid
31
National Conference of State Legislatures, “Guns
on Campus: Overview,” available at http://www.ncsl.
org/research/education/guns-on-campus-overview.
aspx (last accessed March 2015).
32
Ibid.
33
Ibid.
34
Ibid.
35
Benjamin Hardy, “UPDATE: Campus carry’ bill
narrowly fails in committee,” Arkansas Times,
February 5, 2015, available at http://www.arktimes.
com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2015/02/05/campuscarry-bill-to-be-discussed-today-in-committee.
36
Ibid.
37
Rob Moritz, “Colleges, universities opting out of
faculty gun carry law, so far,” Arkansas News, May 19,
2013, available at http://arkansasnews.com/sections/
news/arkansas/colleges-universities-opting-out-
17 Center
Generation
Progress
Campuses
and Guns:
A Multilateral Approach to Gun Violence Prevention
17 for American
Progress | Factsheet
Title
faculty-gun-carry-law-so-far.html.
38
Ibid.
39
The Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus,
“Arkansas’ Colleges Reject Law Permitting
Armed Faculty on Campus,” available at http://
keepgunsoffcampus.org/blog/2014/10/01/arkansascolleges-unanimously-vote-opt-guns-campus-2ndyear-row/ (last accessed March 2015).
40
Ibid.
41
Shannon Watts, “More guns on campus is not
the answer to sexual assault,” MSNBC, February 24,
2015, available at http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/
more-guns-college-campuses-not-the-answer-sexualassault.
42
Ibid.
43
Scott Maben, “Idaho colleges get ready for
concealed weapons on campus,” The Seattle Times,
May 24, 2014, available at http://seattletimes.com/
html/localnews/2023691310_idahocampusgunsxml.
html.
44
Bill Dentzer, “2014 concealed weapons law costs
Idaho colleges $3.7 million,” Idaho Statesman,
February 3, 2015, available at http://www.
idahostatesman.com/2015/02/03/3625295_
weapons-law-costs-idaho-colleges.html?rh=1.
45
Ibid.
46
Ibid.
47
Ibid.
48
Ibid.
49
Ibid.
50
Generation Progress, “State Disinvestment In The
State Of Idaho,” available at http://d35t5xl2jgocwh.
cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/
ID_Disinvestment_Fact_Sheet.pdf (last accessed
March 2015).
51
Lauren McGaughy, “Campus carry would cost Texas
colleges millions,” Houston Chronicle, February 21,
2015, available at http://www.houstonchronicle.com/
news/houston-texas/texas/article/Campus-carrywould-cost-Texas-colleges-millions-6094445.php.
52
Ibid.
53
Christopher Smith Gonzalez, “Guns on campus
could cost colleges,” The Texas Tribune, April
27, 2011, available at http://www.texastribune.
org/2011/04/27/guns-on-campus-could-costcolleges/.
54
Ibid.
55
Marc Ransford, “Study: Most college and
university presidents don’t want guns on campus,”
Ball State University Education Redefined, June
2, 2014, available at http://cms.bsu.edu/news/
articles/2014/6/study-most-college-and-universitypresidents-dont-want-guns-on-campus.
56
The Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus, “Colleges/
Universities & Presidents That Have Joined the
Campaign,” available at http://keepgunsoffcampus.
org/colleges-and-universities-list/ (last accessed
March 2015).
57
Ibid.
58
Ibid.
59
Theodore Decker, “Professors against guns on
campus,” The Columbus Dispatch, January 20, 2013,
available at http://www.dispatch.com/content/
stories/local/2013/01/20/professors-against-guns-
on-campus.html.
60
Ibid.
61
Stephanie Wang, “Study: Midwest college students
oppose guns on campus,” USA Today, September 11,
2013, available at http://www.usatoday.com/story/
news/nation/2013/09/11/study-midwest-collegestudents-oppose-guns-on-campus/2802495/.
62
Ibid.
63
The International Association of Campus Law
Enforcement Administrators, Inc. “IACLEA Position
Statement – Concealed Carrying of Firearms –
Proposals on College Campuses – IACLEA President
Lisa A. Sprague” Press Release, August 12, 2008,
available at http://www.iaclea.org/visitors/PDFs/
ConcealedWeaponsStatement_Aug2008.pdf.
64
Amy Thompson and others, “Reducing FirearmRelated Violence on College Campuses—Police
Chiefs’ Perceptions and Practices,” Journal of
American College Health, 58 (3) (2009): 251.
65
Morgan Smith, “Open, Campus Carry Bills
Pass Senate Panel,” The Texas Tribune, February
12, 2015, available at http://www.texastribune.
org/2015/02/12/gun-hearing/.
66
Ibid.
67
Ibid.
68
Ibid.
69
Reeve Hamilton, “McRaven Letter Takes Aim
at Campus Carry,” The Texas Tribune, January
29, 2015, available at http://www.texastribune.
org/2015/01/29/mcraven-campus-carry-wouldcreate-less-safe-enviro/.
70
Ibid.
71
Evan DeFilippis and Devin Hughes, “The Myth
Behind Defensive Gun Ownership: Guns are more
likely to do harm than good,” Politico Magazine,
January 14, 2015, available at http://www.
politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensivegun-ownership-myth-114262.html?hp=m1#.
VNzyZSQo6ou.
72
Ibid.
73
Ibid.
74
Generation Progress, “It’s On Us Campaign
Organizing Tools,” available at http://itsonus.org/
assets/files/ItsOnUs_CampaignOrganizingTools.pdf
(last accessed March 2015).
75
Kaitlyn Schallhorn, “Lawmaker wants to fight
campus sexual assault with concealed carry,”
Leadership Institute: Campus Reform, January
27, 2015, available at http://www.campusreform.
org/?ID=6230.
76
Ibid.
77
Ibid.
78
Ibid.
79
Ibid.
80
Ibid.
81
Ibid.
82
Ibid.
83
Evan DeFilippis, “Having a gun in the house doesn’t
make women safer,” The Atlantic, February 23, 2014,
available at http://www.theatlantic.com/national/
archive/2014/02/having-a-gun-in-the-house-doesntmake-a-woman-safer/284022/.
84
Ibid.
85
Dana Bolger and Alexandra Brodsky, “Guns make
18 for American
Progress | Factsheet
TitleA Multilateral Approach to Gun Violence Prevention
18 Center
Generation
Progress
Campuses
and Guns:
campus rape victims less safe, not more,” MSNBC,
February 19, 2015, available at http://www.msnbc.
com/msnbc/guns-make-campus-rape-victims-lesssafe-not-more?cid=sm_tw_msnbc.
86
Ibid.
87
Ibid.
88
Ibid.
89
Arkadi Gerney and Chelsea Parsons, “The Gun
Debate 1 Year After Newtown” (Washington: Center
for American Progress, 2013), available at https://
www.americanprogress.org/issues/guns-crime/
report/2013/12/13/80795/the-gun-debate-1-yearafter-newtown/.
90
Ibid.
91
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “Universal
Background Checks & the Private Sale Loophole
Policy Summary,” available at http://smartgunlaws.
org/universal-gun-background-checks-policysummary/ (last accessed March 2015).
92
Caroline Wolf Harlow, “Firearm Use by Offenders”
(Washington: U.S. Department of Justice, 2001)
available at http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf.
93
Margie Omero and others, “What the Public
Really Thinks About Guns” (Washington: Center
for American Progress, 2013), available at https://
www.americanprogress.org/issues/civil-liberties/
report/2013/03/27/58092/what-the-public-reallythinks-about-guns/.
94
Joe Johns and Stacey Samuel, “Would background
checks have stopped recent mass shootings?
Probably not,” CNN, April 10, 2013, available
at http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/politics/
background-checks-mass-shootings/index.html.
95
Ibid.
96
Ibid.
97
Ibid.
98
Dan Bauman, “Campus Police Acquire Military
Weapons,” The New York Times, September 21, 2014,
available at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/
world/americas/campus-police-acquire-militaryweapons.html?_r=0.
99
Ibid.
100
Ibid.
101
Dan Bauman, “Campus Police Acquire Military
Weapons.”
102
Allie Grasgreen, “College cops score defense
supplies,” Politico, August 25, 2014, available at
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/defensesurplus-university-police-110323.html.
103
Ibid.
104
Dan Bauman, “Campus Police Acquire Military
Weapons.”
105
Ibid.
106
Ibid.
107
Dan Bauman, “Campus Police Acquire Military
Weapons.”
108
Ibid.
109
Dan Bauman, “Campus Police Acquire Military
Weapons.”
110
John Eligon and Michael S. Schmidt, “In Ferguson,
scrutiny on police is growing,” NY Times, August
20, 2014, available at http://www.nytimes.
com/2014/08/21/us/in-ferguson-scrutiny-on-policeis-growing.html?_r=0.
Dan Bauman, “Campus Police Acquire Military
Weapons.”
112
Ibid.
113
Michael Auslen and Brian Eason, “Campus police
also acquire military surplus equipment,” The Indy
Star, September 15, 2014, available at http://www.
indystar.com/story/news/education/2014/09/13/
indiana-campus-police-acquire-military-surplusgear/15608083/.
114
Ibid.
115
Ibid.
116
Ibid.
117
Michael Auslen and Brian Eason, “Campus police
also acquire military surplus equipment.”
118
Ibid.
119
Ibid.
120
Representative Hank Johnson, “Rep. Johnson
reintroduces bipartisan bill to de-militarize police,”
Press Release, March 4, 2015, available at http://
hankjohnson.house.gov/press-release/rep-johnsonreintroduces-bipartisan-bill-de-militarize-police.
121
Ibid.
122
Dan Bauman, “Campus Police Acquire Military
Weapons.”
123
Maureen Downey, “Most Georgians say ‘no’ to
guns on campus. Will Legislature listen to them?”
AJC.com Blog, January 13, 2014, available at http://
www.ajc.com/weblogs/get-schooled/2014/jan/13/
most-georgians-say-no-guns-campus-will-legislature/.
124
The White House, “Now Is The Time: The
President’s plan to protect our children and our
communities by reducing gun violence,” available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/
wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf
111
19 Center
19
Generation
for American
Progress
Progress Campuses
| Factsheet
and Guns:
TitleA Multilateral Approach to Gun Violence Prevention