note: When the first submition of this letter was not published I assumed the editorial board sent it to the trash in place of owning up to a mistake. In restrospect it seems the board my have been overwhelmed with letters in reguard too “guns on campus.” So, a second submision for the benifit of the doubt.
A response to The Chronicle’s View “The Lessons of Arizona” and “Guns Don’t Belong on Campus.” Unfortunately, speculation and inaccuracies are often the substance of the gun control debate. The Chronicle’s editorial board is guilty of both. Oct. 30,2002 the Chronicle’s editorial board writes, “Statistics show victims who use weapons to confront criminals are much more likely to die or be injured than victims who do not.” This is not true when the weapon is a gun. Women offering no resistance when attacked are 2.5 times more likely to be seriously injured than those resisting with a firearm. They are 4 times more likely to be seriously injured when resisting without a gun than with a gun. Men are 1.4 times more likely to be seriously injured offering no resistance compared to resisting with a gun and 1.5 times more likely to be seriously injured resisting without a gun than with one. Lawrence Southwick, Associate Professor at the University of Buffalo and Gary Kleck, Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University in two independent reviews of Department of Justice statistics from the National Victimization Survey (1979-1987) separately arrived at these figures. I would be interested in the specifics of the “statistics” offered in Lessons of Arizona if they are anything more than speculation on the editorial board’s part. Even more concerning is the misrepresentation of specific findings in a recent publication from the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Nov. 4,2002 the Chronicle’s editorial board writes, “-this survey shows that in some parts of the country, students carrying weapons are more than two times as likely to be threatened with a gun at school,” and then rhetorically, “If guns are supposed to protect students, then why are students with guns twice as likely to be threatened with a gun?” This goes beyond even a casual mistake. In truth the study found that students in the East South Atlantic states, when compared to students in New England, were 2.2 times more likely to have been threatened with a gun while at college, irrespective of carrying or owning a firearm. The findings of the HICRC study are still concerning. The bottom line is this; students who participate in risk taking and sometimes-illegal activity are more likely than their law-abiding non-risk taking peers to also own a firearm. I am not particularly surprised that students involved in breaking the law choose also to break gun law, for example carrying an illegally concealed gun. This seems peripheral to the current debate. We should be concerned with the behavior of students who are licensed by the state of Utah to carry a concealed weapon and if this should be restricted on the U of U campus. Illegal behavior like that outlined in the HICRC study are grounds for the revocation of a carry permit. According to the Utah State Firearms Bureau between the summer of 1994 and July 1999 0.4% of permits in Utah were revoked. 80 percent were due to drunk driving violations. It is my understanding that review of permit holders has increased to a bi-annual basis and this may be reflected in more recent figures. However, the point remains. The HICRC study did not single out those students with carry permits and otherwise has nothing to say about their behavior and level of illegal activity. In fact a HICRC press release carried by jointogether.org, a decidedly pro gun control organization, contained this caveat; “Dr. Miller emphasized that the study only indicates associations; it does not show causation. The study does not provide information concerning the circumstances surrounding gun threats and does not attempt to determine whether guns at college cause or prevent problems.” It is a serious matter for a state run institution to restrict the rights of its employees and patrons, particularly one recognized by the United States Bill of Rights. I expect the Chronicle to elevate the debate above speculation and misquoted research.