The recent Oregon mass shootings remind us that we are not always safe, even in places that are assumed to be safe because of designations such as, “gun-free zones”. There’s disagreement as to whether Umpqua Community College (UCC) is in fact a gun free zone.
These mass shootings do something else: they reignite the bitterly divided gun control debate in this country and bring it right back to center stage.
By all accounts, this appears to be yet another senseless and tragic mass murder. The gunman has been described as a 26-year-old who “has long struggled with mental issues.” Sadly, it’s the 45th school shooing this year in the U.S. according to newspaper sources.
Gun control is a hot button issue. It’s a powder keg of raw emotions with a very short fuse. Umpqua College where this tragedy occurred, is itself, a reflection of this polarization and the ongoing tension between advocates for stronger gun control and the powerful gun rights’ groups.
UCC has a policy prohibiting guns, knives longer than 4”, and other weapons such as BB guns, air guns, water pistols, & paint guns. It also prohibits, ammunition, explosives, dangerous chemicals, etc., except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations.
Joe Olson, the former President of UCC said that in 2014 they had one of the biggest debates on whether or not security personnel should be armed. They were split down the middle but in the end voted to go unarmed.
On the other hand, Oregon is one of seven states that allow individuals with concealed carry permits to carry firearms onto public college and university campuses. Several students we learned, had firearms with them on that fateful day. It is their right. In 1989 Oregon passed a law that forbids any public body other than the Legislature from restricting the rights of concealed weapons’ permit holders.
Then in 2011, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled against the Oregon University System in a case where a student with a valid permit was suspended from college for bringing a concealed weapon on campus. The Oregonian reported that he sued the college – and won.
So you have this tug-of-war between university policy and Oregon state law. Oregon itself leans liberal but has a gun culture woven into the very fabric and way of life of Roseburg and surrounding Douglas County. There’s a large population of hunters, sports shooters, law enforcement and military veterans. It is estimated that one in 16 Oregon adults have such a license.
UCC is a ‘gun-free zone’ from the viewpoint of their clearly stated policies and usage of unarmed guards. They are not a gun-free zone because Oregon law allows those with valid permits to have concealed firearms. So you have a curious if not conflicted result; a security guard with no gun while the students are packing?!
Here’s my question: How does UCC enforce its no guns/no weapons policy? A university professor who was interviewed said that it works on the honor system – it depends on the honest and responsible behavior of their students. This has worked well up until October 1st, 2015. But all it takes is one nut or a disgruntled person to bring total mayhem to a school and the community at large.
So what could schools and colleges do to prevent this type of domestic terrorism from happening again? UCC’s decision to employ unarmed guards was not necessarily wrong. Even if that guard had been armed, there’s no way of knowing if he could have prevented this tragedy from happening. UCC is a 100-acre campus with many buildings and that’s a large area to cover for just one security guard per shift.
There is however one thing that UCC and other schools could do to protect the welfare of everyone on campus: They could install full body scanners as they do in our airports and it could practically eliminate these tragedies from ever occurring again. And it wouldn’t take an Act of Congress!
Is this an inconvenience? Yes, but so is having an airplane blown out of the sky. Airports have been hugely successful from stopping bombers, hijackers and people carrying weapons on board our aircraft for the past 14 years.
The other thing is why advertise, gun free zones? Why not advertise just the opposite and post that the campus is patrolled by five ex-Navy SEALs and five plain clothed private detectives? There’s a principle in the game of chess: The threat is mightier than the execution!
With both sides so firmly entrenched, is there anything else that can be done? Is there any common ground or starting point for sensible gun control? I think so. With so many of these shooters clearly afflicted with mental illnesses, (Aurora, Newtown) why not impose further restrictions and background checks on these individuals? It will no doubt have challenges and have to be carefully studied and drafted, but it’s a starting point.
There’s no reason why a mentally disturbed person such as the shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary School should have had an automatic weapon. Nor should he have ever been able to enter the school in the first place. Here’s a grim reality: That shooter would have fallen through the cracks regardless of whatever gun laws were in place because all the weapons used belonged to his mother. But he would never have gotten past full body scanners and security checkpoints had they existed.
Listen, I support and respect our Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, but I believe both sides should be more respectful and be more open to constructive ideas. Even our cherished Freedom of Speech under the 1st Amendment does not give an individual the right to yell, “Fire”, in a crowded theatre (when there is no fire).
That said, I’m in favor of more immediate measures as the ones mentioned earlier that would virtually put an end to this insanity and innocent slaughter. There’s no rhyme or reason to it. The gun control debate in America will likely rage on for years and many more lives will be lost.
There are too many moms and dads, uncles and aunts, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters that are suffering with their hearts torn in half because of these shameless and senseless shooting sprees.
I remember the phone call when my mother called to tell me that my brother Robert had been murdered back in 1996. It was a horrible gut wrenching call. My sister Simone perhaps said it best: “I never want to hear those screams ever again.”
Neither should anyone else.
