The University of Central Arkansas may be headed away from today’s rush to tote pistols so as to be ready for violence on campuses, in churches and other places.
President Tom Courtway, the UCA Faculty and the school’s police chief have come out in opposition to a bit of legislation in the current General Assembly that would allow colleges to approve firearms on campus. Holders of concealed carry permits could take their pistols to class, to labs and to gym workouts.
Our thinking is right in line with Courtway et al.
UCA needs to be gun-free. So does Hendrix and so does Central Baptist. In no way are we in the ranks of those who want complete elimination of firearms, but there is a time and place for the legitimate possession and use of pistols, rifles and shotguns — and a college campus is not the place.
A professor packing a pistol just does not grab us as desirable. Should this professor be so equipped, do we really think he or she could or would stop a crazy who walks into the room with an assault rifle or a handgun or a pipe bomb? Is a student with a permit sitting in a lecture going to whip out a gun and stop an attack?
Neither is likely.
What is much more apt to occur is a teacher being extremely nervous and distracted knowing that somewhere in the room or hall full of students are a few who are packing guns. If the teacher says, “Today we will have a pop quiz,” will another kind of pop take place?
Just keep guns off the campus. Period. No exceptions. No special cases or privileged persons.
Some UCA students are hunters, and hunting is a legitimate use of firearms. The campus, though, is not a field with game animals that may be in season. A sophomore business major may want to get in a little squirrel hunting in the afternoon when classes are over, and this is fine. But that sophomore should not have a .22 rifle or a shotgun on campus, not even in the trunk of a car or behind the seat of a pickup.
Possibly, just possibly, consideration could be given a secure storage facility to meet this scenario or for a dormitory resident who hunts or who competes in skeet shooting. If there is such a need, the UCA Police Department would seem to be logical, and it is in operation around the clock so the hunter who gets back after dark or who gets out before dawn could be accommodated.
Nationwide, we are in too much of a dither over changing the rules on guns. Yes, there have been tragedies such as the mass shootings and the more numerous one-on-one killings with firearms. But virtually all the dialogue and the few instances of action in the form of new laws have been aimed at the implements, the firearms, and not at the perpetrators, the violently angered and the mentally unstable who make use of guns.
At UCA and other campuses, the surroundings are thick with people in their late teens and early 20s. Life is changing for these folks. Doors are opening. Opportunities are coming into view. Older persons who have the assets of experience and education are on campuses to direct and nourish the students.
Neither students or faculty, nor any one else on campus, should have to contend with the volatile issue of firearms nearby.

Comments (8)
Add commentToo much
You seem to be in "much of a dither" over laws aimed at implements rather than perpetrators. If you can spot those "violently angered" and "mentally unstable" before they "make use of guns" and actually become "perpetrators," please share with us. Hordes of psychologists, philosophers, theologians, law enforcement professionals, and my Aunt Myrtle have had a go at forecasting who will do what to whom with so little success it will be a relief to many to finally know the secret. Also, please share with the rest of us the laws (or even the dialogue) that will stop people from using firearms to commit violent acts. I think any useful suggestions will be welcomed.
Brave stance
Way to go, LCD. You're willing to step out and take an editorial position which is sure to be unpopular to those most likely to yell.
Way to be brave. *high five*
yes
" as to be ready for violence "
Because being ready for bad things is terrible.
Sincerely,
Fire stations, weather bureaus, seat belts, helmets, and fire extinguishers.
" but there is a time and place for the legitimate possession and use of pistols, rifles and shotguns — and a college campus is not the place."
Yes, only illegitimate possession should occur at those places.
Sincerely,
Sandy Hook, Aurora and Columbine, CO and Virginia Tech.
Being ready
Columbine had an armed guard on duty but he could not stop the killing. And armed students or teachers could not stop it either. But they do run the real risk of making things worse in a crisis or, more likely, making a crisis where none exists. You may have seen this story on ABC's 20/20:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s (part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLN6_s66wTg (part 2)
In their experiment students were trained in the use of firearms to a greater extent than most states require, then put in a mock situation in which a 'killer' enters the classroom. None were able to stop the 'killer' before they themselves were 'killed'.
so
Your evidence is a youtube video from 20/20?
Can you show me a link to Dateline's GM sidesaddle fuel-tank video?
Duplicate?
Didn't we read this same, brave editorial before?
@AO and @LCD
Yes it is a duplicate from Friday. http://thecabin.net/interact/editorials/2013-03-15/armed-faculty-student...
Or they could meet halfway
How about the CC permit holder that lives a distance away? Maybe they wouldn't want to take their weapon to a class and maybe it really isn't a good idea to do so. Maybe they would like to feel safe when they stop at a service station to or from work. Why not make a concession for that instead of the lazy decision of zero tolerance? Why not say at least, if you so desire and are authorized you can store it, in an appropriate manner, inside your vehicle? With the parking stickers that are adhered to their windshields and while at a service station or wherever, crooks will have a pretty good idea that person is unarmed.
As it stands now, anyone that works or attends UCA is either disarmed during their commute or in violation.
What If
They are on a journey before or after school?
5-73-120 (c)(4)
(c) It is a defense to a prosecution under this section that at the time of the act of carrying a weapon:
(4) The person is carrying a weapon when upon a journey, unless the journey is through a commercial airport when presenting at the security checkpoint in the airport or is in the person's checked baggage and is not a lawfully declared weapon; (a journey is defined as traveling beyond your circle of neighbors and general acquaintances our(sic) outside a person’s normal travel routine)
Though the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of Arkansas (AG McDaniel) refused to precisely define the meaning of a journey, it seems his subordinates at the Arkansas State Police have kindly provided all of Arkansas’s citizens with a meaningful description of a journey.
According to the above statement, the act of openly carrying (or the concealing) of a handgun is completely free from prosecution unless a prosecutor can prove:
1.You are not still within your circle of neighbors, and
2.You are not beyond your circle of acquaintances, or
3.You are not outside your normal travel routine.
Of course, a citizen of Arkansas or a tourist passing through our great state may still be arrested by some of the ‘unenlightened’ members of the law enforcement community, since these LEOs are probably unaware of this public declaration by the Arkansas State Police.
Editorial: No guns at UCA
While I share the conclusion reached, it is disappointing nonetheless that this editorial contains a major factual error as well as fails to draw actual parallels between the reasoning behind Courtway's conclusion and that of the editorial staff.
First, Act 226 is explicit in excluding students with concealed carry permits to bring their guns onto campus. Rather, if UCA fails to opt out, only faculty and staff would be permitted to do so. Removing student-specific material will likely remove about half of the editorial's length.
Second, "Our thinking is right in line with Courtway et al." On the one hand, while the editorial shares Courtway's conclusion, his reasoning to that conclusion is not spelled out so as to fail to demonstrate the "thinking is right in line." The editorial, on the other hand, has substituted assertions for an argument, again failing to show any similar argument.