Search

A conservatively-minded campus, Liberty University's administrators have, like many college campuses, struggled with creating an appropriate weapons policy. The policies in existence prior to 2011 were more traditionally anti-weapon, while those created after 2011 have been more forgiving. This article examines the background, both national and local, for these shifts in policy.

This exploratory research surveyed faculty who instruct in community colleges from 18 states about their attitudes toward the concealed carry gun policies that allow appropriately licensed citizens to carry a handgun in public places such as college campuses. Building upon previous research involving 4-year institutions, we surveyed 1,889 community college faculty who work in states that allow some flexibility in determining concealed carry policies and practices. Descriptive statistics, background characteristics, exposure to the use and ownership of firearms, and attitudinal questions about safety concerns, victimization history, and opinions about allowing concealed carry on community college campuses were analyzed. Our analyses revealed that the majority of community college faculty felt safe on their campuses, were not supportive of having students, faculty, or visitors conceal carry on their campuses, and they believed anyone granted a concealed carry permit should have to first pass a firearms training course. Our findings add to the current guns-on-campus discussions by illustrating that there is an across-the-board consensus among different types of postsecondary education institutions and levels of faculty who wish to stave off permitting lawful guns on their campuses. Further, our study suggests that faculty overwhelmingly feel that allowing guns on campuses would change the atmosphere from one that feels safe to one that feels uncharacteristically threatening. The number of American colleges and universities that permit concealed firearms on campus is small, but the number is growing as is the magnitude of the debate regarding guns on campus. Research has been conducted to ascertain the popularity of this policy among the major players: namely students, faculty, staff, and administration. Most of the research has focused on the community members of 4-year colleges and universities. This research, while replicating a study by Thompson, Price, Dake, and Teeple (2013), investigated the attitudes and perceptions of faculty who instruct in community colleges from 18 states. The states were chosen because in these locations the colleges have some flexibility in determining their weapons policy.

The recent shootings at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Virginia Tech) shocked the nation and brought violence on college campuses to the forefront of the nation's attention. We surveyed college students and faculty/staff three weeks after the incident about their perceptions of the Virginia Tech shooting, subsequent media exposure, and school violence in general. We found that students agreed with faculty/staff that mental illness and a lack of friendship were likely causal factors in the shootings. Students believed that social support, friendship, good mental health, and parenting were important factors in preventing subsequent incidents. We also found that media exposure and time spent discussing the incident with family and friends were associated with increased psychiatric symptoms. Gender differences were observed in the domains of fearing for personal safety, perceptions of increased parental concern, the role of violent media, and the need for gun control. (Contains 4 tables.)

The shootings that took place last spring on the campus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, located in Blacksburg, Virginia, elicited a host of reactions, many deeply emotional. In groups of college and university presidents, the response was generally empathetic. Indeed, they were right to be put on alert by the random and unpredictable nature of a disaster like the loss of 33 lives at this large and generally peaceful landgrant university. In the days following the mass killings, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine quickly established a panel to investigate the events leading up to that day, the incidents themselves, and their immediate aftermath. The author was among the eight members of the panel, which was chaired by Col. Gerald Massengill, former Superintendent of the Virginia State Police. Some of what the panel ultimately reported to Governor Kaine pertains primarily to Virginia and to the university. Many of its recommendations are relevant to all 50 states and to most of the approximately 4,000 colleges and universities in the nation. This article discusses the panel's findings and offers seven crucial lessons learned from the tragedy: (1) States should provide sufficient outpatient mental-health services; (2) States should comply with the Federal Gun Control Act; (3) Congress and the state legislatures should review federal and state privacy laws, and universities should know what they do and do not permit; (4) Colleges and universities should communicate, both within themselves and beyond; (5) Write a plan that fits; (6) Make formal arrangements, and practice; and (7) Develop a way to access students' mental-health records.

Aggression and violence in the United States remain vexing problems that require several key responses. First, universal prevention programs and targeted treatment strategies for people at risk of aggressive behavior are needed to address the established link between mental illness and the potential for violence. Sadly, many perpetrators of gun violence are themselves victims of mental illness who find it all too easy to obtain and use firearms (Freedenthal, 2007). Efficacious interventions that break the potentially dangerous relationship between violence and mental illness should be a public policy priority. Finally, in an effort to find legislative solutions to regulate firearms effectively, lobbying efforts aimed at sane gun control policies must be a public policy priority. Social work's presence in these efforts should be continued and enhanced.

By the end of June, the U.S. Supreme Court will issue its first decision in many decades on the meaning of the right to keep and bear arms under the Constitution. The ruling could have a significant impact on federal gun-control regulations. The Second Amendment has historically not been held to apply to state regulations, but a decision by the court could influence the tone and substance of debates at the state level. In light of that impending decision, and in the wake of the shootings at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University, those who work at colleges should be reviewing their policies regarding weapons on their campuses. The composition of the Supreme Court and the questions asked during the oral arguments have led many experts to believe that the court will reinforce the notion that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns, and perhaps will make it more difficult to justify some of the more-stringent prohibitions in gun-control regulations and policies. "Context matters" when applying constitutional standards, as former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stated in "Grutter v. Bollinger", the affirmative-action case concerning University of Michigan Law School admissions. When it comes to the regulation of weapons, the context of higher education is not the same as that of hunting, or even city or rural life. In academe the context is meant to protect vigorous, open, safe debate about ideas like those at stake in the Supreme Court case itself. Many people, including the author, feel that lethal weapons do not belong in that context, other than in the hands of trained law-enforcement professionals, with limited exceptions for specific purposes as he discusses here.

When news broke April 16 of the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, the question many horrified Americans most wanted to answer was, "Who was the shooter?" It's an urgent and understandable question, but one that rests on a dangerous assumption: that if everyone only knew more about the killer, then what he did would make sense--and everyone would know what to do to prevent such a thing from happening again. The assumption that everyone can make policy based on individual stories is dangerous because, for a variety of reasons, individual stories call everyone's attention to factors that make those cases unique, not factors that tie them together. What ties these massacres together is guns. In the immediate aftermath of the Virginia Tech killings, before the gunman was publicly named, speculation swirled about his identity and motives. He was rumored to be, alternately, a lone gunman with no known ties to the university; a jealous boyfriend seeking revenge on his girlfriend; a disgruntled former student seeking revenge against the university; or a Chinese national possibly bent on harming America. The following day everyone learned that the gunman was a troubled 23-year-old South Korean national who was also a resident student at Virginia Tech. Important as that information may be to law-enforcement officers piecing together the crime, it's hard to see how these details can help everyone frame meaningful policy to prevent further shootings. Understanding an assailant's motives or place in the social order tells everyone very little about what to do next. In this article, the author points out that individual stories of school violence should lead to framing policies that respond not only to individual events such as school violence but also to broader patterns such as mass shootings or gun violence in general.

State lawmakers in Virginia recently approved a measure to limit to one the number of handguns a person can purchase within a thirty day period. In the months preceding the law's approval, a survey was conducted to measure the level of public support for the proposed initiative. The results of the survey were provided to lawmakers and other high level government officials in an effort to provide policymakers with objective data for gauging support (or non-support) for the proposal. Past public opinion polls which have measured attitudes concerning gun control reveal differences in the levels of support with regard to such factors as individual gun ownership and region of residence. The following research reveals the sentiment of one State's citizenry toward a specific handgun control measure by focusing on how responses varied across selected sub-groups within the sample. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the authors response on the criticism given to his paper about the shall-issue laws in Virginia. The largest recent gun control study examined only 170 cities within a single year. None of the previous studies even accounted for such obvious variables as arrest or conviction rates. Strong evidence associates the number of concealed handguns to decrease violent crime rates and fewer deaths. The author's work examined crime rates over 16 years across 3054 counties in the U.S. It accounted for changes in arrests and convictions, detailed county demographies, drug prices,and general variables such as unemployment, income, and poverty.