Column: Arming professors and students may not be such a far-fetched idea
Date: Apr 25, 2007 9:49 AM
PUBLICATION: The Province
DATE: 2007.04.25
EDITION: Final
SECTION: Editorial
PAGE: A18
COLUMN: John Martin
BYLINE: John Martin
SOURCE: The Province
WORD COUNT: 416

————————————————————————
——–

Arming professors and students may not be such a far-fetched idea

————————————————————————
——–

In the aftermath of the massacre at Virginia Tech, the gun-control
debate is raging as never before. And while much of the vigorous
exchange is to be expected, one item is receiving particular attention.

What if a student, faculty or staff member was armed that fatal morning?
Perhaps he (or she) could have intervened and kept the fatalities to a
minimum.

For many, this is a preposterous and ridiculous notion unworthy of
contemplation.

That would be a mistake.

What were the odds a couple decades ago that Vancouver would ban smoking
in all buildings, but you could still go into a nice, warm,
taxpayer-subsidized room to legally shoot heroin and cocaine?

As noted economist John Lott Jr. and others have concluded,
jurisdictions where non-felons can legally acquire permits to carry
concealed handguns enjoy an immediate reduction in violent crime.
Research shows the issuing of such permits discourages or displaces
offenders.

It has also been noted that mass killings typically occur in gun-free
zones where law-abiding citizens, unlike mass murderers, tend to follow
the rules.

But given the questionable performances of the police and the
administration at Virginia Tech, it’s not unreasonable to expect some
citizens may decide they need to play a more direct role in their
personal safety.

As columnist Mark Steyn noted, imagine what would happen if five Arabs,
brandishing tiny box-cutters, walked into a crowded sports bar and
demanded the patrons turn over their truck keys? Most likely, the lucky
ones would wake up in the hospital a couple days later.

But citizens on planes or university grounds don’t tend to respond with
the same instinctive survival mechanisms that may surface in other
situations.

However deranged, potential mass murderers know this — and tend to
avoid biker bars and martial-arts schools to acquire their 15 minutes of
infamy. Locations where potential victims are unarmed and security is
lax are much more preferable.

Still, the notion that one should require a firearm to feel safe at an
institution of higher learning is a sad commentary on society. It’s a
response most are unwilling to concede. And it doesn’t appear there’s
much appetite at this time for students and teachers to throw a revolver
into their knapsacks and briefcases each morning.

But it wasn’t that long ago that children were taught always to listen
to and do what adults told them. Women were also instructed they should
never physically resist an attacker, as this would only worsen the
situation. In hindsight, both these were horrifically ill-advised ideals
that only served to multiply the number of victims.

Why weren’t children made aware of predators and women taught
self-defence and survival skills?

Well, realistically, there just wasn’t much appetite for it — at the
time.

Contact criminologist John Martin, of the University College of the
Fraser Valley,

The Second Amendment IS Homeland Security !