Many universities ban firearms, but some research I've been doing reveals that some universities ban firearms and stun guns and chemical defensive sprays, either in dorm rooms or in the university as a whole. This basically leaves students entirely without any defensive weapons, and also has the effect of disarming dorm residents when they go off campus property, since they have no place to store the defensive weapons when they're back on campus.
This strikes me as quite shocking, especially with regard to women students who are in the age range where the danger of rape is at its highest. The university basically leaves them as sitting ducks, unless they're willing to violate the university policy. Even if the university tries to compensate by offering a good deal of on-campus policing (some do and some don't), it surely can't protect the students when they leave campus.
Some of the universities I've found that do this are Cornell, Duke, NYU, Hofstra, University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth (though perhaps only limited to "carrying" rather than possessing in a dorm room), Bridgewater State College (likewise possibly limited to "carrying"), and University of Maryland-University College, but there are many more. Here is the explanation from Cornell for its ban (Cornell confirms that the policy remains in place today):
[P]epper spray still falls within Campus Code of Conduct language which makes it a violation to "possess, carry, or use firearms, ... ammunition, explosives, or other dangerous weapons, instruments, or substances in or upon University premises." Even though a person might possess a permit to carry a gun in the city of Ithaca, that person is not permitted to carry the gun at Cornell. Similarly, even though New York state law permits the carrying of pepper spray within the state in general, carrying this substance is not permitted on the Cornell campus.
Some people in the community may feel that this reading of the Campus Code of Conduct denies them a legitimate means of protection. While pepper spray can provide a means of protection, certain other facts indicate its limitations. Those facts include:
Pepper spray canisters are unreliable in cold weather.
If sprayed into the wind, the effects intended for the assailant can instead affect the victim, rendering the victim even more helpless than she or he was originally.
Pepper spray may be lethal to those with asthma or other respiratory problems.
Use of pepper spray for any purpose other than self-defense (for example, as a prank) — or use of the spray against a police officer — constitutes a criminal offense. Even lawful use of pepper spray may result in legal action against the user if a medical emergency results.
One of the biggest concerns is that people will place unjustified reliance on pepper spray and will forget other safety precautions that may provide even greater security. Those precautions include:
Walk in well-lit areas with a friend.
Keep car keys accessible at all times.
If you must walk alone, walk with a strong, confident stance.
Carry a whistle, and use it or yell if confronted or attacked.
Educate yourself on self-defense techniques.
Lovely: You might overrely on pepper spray, and you might misuse it (though of course people can misuse "self-defense techniques" as well). So we won't let you have any defensive weapons at all, and instead suggest — as our first suggestion — that you instead limit where you go, and ask for protection from others (whether by walking with them or yelling for help).
In Massachusetts, by the way, the state bill of rights begins with, "All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties ...." I know of no caselaw on the subject there, but there are many court decisions in other states interpreting such constitutional provisions as in fact securing an individual right. What happens to the right to defend life and liberty of students at Bridgewater and University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth students? It's reduced to (in the words of the Bridgewater policy) the right to "stay aware of their surroundings and perhaps even learn self-defense."
UPDATE: I originally noted that the Cornell explanation was of 1997, and I wasn't sure whether the Cornell pepper spray ban was still in effect — I e-mailed the Cornell people about it, and they've confirmed that it is indeed in effect. I've updated the post accordingly.
I don't understand this logic. Why does the university have any obligation to what occurs off campus property? If you ride a bike or walk to work, does the employer have the obligation of giving you a locker or other secure storage for your firearm?
.
They don't. I took the comment as a value-free observation, that students who live on campus lack the sort of "at home storage" facility that others have.
.
But the students choose to put themselves in a disarmed condition by signing up to go to that school, so as far as I'm concerned, they can pound sand.
This is only really valid if there are alternative schools available nearby with different weapons policies.
But I understand some schools forbid drinking by students under 21. I wonder how well that works out.
Right, because every student should be forced to read the minutia of a university's rules and regulations before signing up. If we spent the time necessary to learn every rule and law that we voluntarily subject ourselves to, we'd have no time for anything else.
'crats are always happier with victims. Gives them reasons for more restrictions on the citizenry and more money for "programs". Also, you can go to the funeral and look ostentatiously solemn.
Whatcha gonna do with a woman who offs a couple of would-be rapists. I mean, besides try to prosecute her?
No reason for restrictions on the law-abiding and no justification for funding requests.
Reduced infantilization of the citizenry.
Lose all around.
Now, what is needed is some enterprising person to create a website with University crime statistics and a summary of personal defense restrictions from their code of conduct. They they could provide a Rape, Murder, Mugging rating for the schools along with school imposed restrictions on student self-protection. I'm sure the schools would welcome such ratings for the help it would give prospective students.
In the case of private employers and the legal obligation, obviously not.
But we're not talking private employers here; at least some of these schools are public, and thus legally bound by the Constitution of the United States and the state constitution. Nor are we merely talking legal obligation; we're talking practical results.
http://ope.ed.gov/security/
The first part was done by the *gasp* government.
It is unclear to me how much discretion on this issue that the NC legislature has allowed for Duke to hold.
Just because they have the right doesn't mean it's sound policy. They have the right to teach a class called Neo-Naziism 101: Hitler was the greatest guy ever. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Also, the list of alternatives to carrying pepper spray is absurd. "walk with a strong, confident stance." LOL. I'm sure THAT will frighten off some graduate of the local penal institution. Some 18 year old chess club nerd, or 100 lb girl staggering back to her dorm room with a John Wayne gait.
Also, I really don't understand all this emphasis on self-defense classes for women. The physical and hormonal differences between a man and woman are so extreme that I honestly can't see any benefit to them whatsoever. It's almost like some twisted branch of feminism, where they are determined to prove they are just as tough as men.
As a betting man, I would place my wager on the male attacker 99% of the time against a female self-defense intructor and I would walk away a rich man. On the other hand, I would place my bet on the woman holding a can of pepper spray about 95% of the time. I've seen first hand what that stuff can do.
I'm quite sure that EV is aware that a huge proportion of society believes that an individual's right to self-defense does not outweigh the interest in reducing overall social harm. That is the underlying rationale for most gun restrictions. Anyone who knows the gun control debate as well as EV does should not find it "quite shocking" to learn that this social welfare rationale is popular among private university administrators.
And what's the ultimate point? You disagree with the notion that social good can be weighed against the individual right of self-defense. Well, who among us didn't already know that was EV's position on the matter?
Using the US Dept of Ed Campus Security Data Analysis tool, and plugging in a search of all 4 year + institutions in Mass (and opening it up to include any enrollment numbers and any program), it returns 176 institutions, both public and private. Contrary to Spinal Taps' view, Massachusetts is very much a "college town." And looking at the aggregated data, there haven't been any murders in three years (as far back as it will pull up), an average of 119 sex offenses per year (across 176 institutions), avg 9 robberies (per year), avg 76 aggravated assaults, 900 burglaries, virtually no motor vehicle theft, 9 arsons.
I have no idea which schools outside of Mass allow students to arm themselves on campus or in their dorms, so I'll leave a direct comparison up to someone who isn't at work right now. However, I just don't see how allowing the students (and there are a lot of them in Mass) to arm themselves would cut down on any of those crime stats. A good number of those schools are located in urban areas, ie Boston University, Boston College, Harvard. Having taught while doing graduate work at one of them (bacteriologist, not a lawyer), I wouldn't want to be lecturing in front of 200 students knowing any or all could be carrying a gun.
Whether or not this is "shocking" surely depends at least in part on whether students at those universities face a signficant risk of violent crime.
To take one example, Cornell is located in Ithaca, New York. In most years, there are no murders in Ithaca at all. (It's not clear that a Cornell student has been murdered on or near campus in living memory, although I suppose it may have happened.) Likewise for Dartmouth, Massachusetts.
Well, in the case of public universities they sure didn't choose to pay for the schools.
So if you want to use the services you pay for without leaving yourself completely prone to every pervert you get to pound sand. Nice.
Some people in the community may feel that this reading of the Campus Code of Conduct denies them a legitimate means of protection. While [running away] can provide a means of protection, certain other facts indicate its limitations. Those facts include:
*
[Running is unreliable when done so while fully clothed.]
*
[If you trip while running,] the effects intended for the assailant can instead affect the victim, rendering the victim even more helpless than she or he was originally.
*
[Running] may be lethal to those with asthma or other respiratory problems.
*
[The use of running to taunt a dog] -- [or to escape] a police officer -- constitutes a criminal offense. Even lawful use of [running] may result in legal action against the [runner] if [the assailant experiences] a medical emergency [while chasing you].
I still think self-defense classes for women are a good idea, even if by themselves they are not sufficient to fully protect women.
For businesses, not allowing people to take reasonable and lawful measures for self-protection is a basis for possible tort liability. Maybe, after a couple of big judgments and settlements, small arms and hand-to-hand training will become a mandatory first semester course for frosh women, who will also get a can of pepper spray in their admission packets.
But, maybe not. You are discussing academia. The
SisterhoodVictimhood is Powerful!Really?
.
Ignorance is bliss, perhaps.
.
-- So if you want to use the services you pay for without leaving yourself completely prone to every pervert you get to pound sand. --
.
I think the regulation is bad policy and counterproductive. But I find the position of a person who goes to the school, then complains about the policy, to be similar to the person who moves next to a pig farm then complains about the smell.
.
There are a significant number of states that I would never live in, based on their policies NY, CA, IL, MA, CT come to mind. Choice of school is no different. If avoiding being disarmed is important (and you are unwilling to practice civil disobedience), pick a different school.
I lecture in MA too, and I wouldn't object to any of the various nonlethal devices also forbidden -- pepper spray, stun weapons ...
Utah has both legislation and a SC ruling
link
I have the right to learn self defense.
Okay, now that I've learned self defense, I've discovered that the best way to defend myself is to have pepper spray and firearms available to me at all times so I can choose what is best in any particular self-defense scenario. What do I do now?
How many "unwarranted uses of pepper spray/stun guns" incidents have occurred on college campuses in Ithaca, Dartmouth, Massachusetts?
I wonder why Connecticut is on your prohibited list, while New Jersey, for example, is not. Connecticut's concealed carry law, like Alabama's, is technically "may issue" but virtually shall-issue in practice: There is no requirement to demonstrate "need." The portion of the public holding permits to carry is higher than in all but three other states. While private property owners may, of course, prohibit firearms on their premises, the places prohibited under state statutes are very limited.
What does the urbanity of the area have to do with the victimization of college students known-to-be-disarmed vs. possibly-armed?
All the studies I know of suggest that criminals (of the habitual variety, at least) are well aware of the possibility of armed resistance (or the lack thereof) and take it into account; the idea that it just makes no difference in the case of students because the campus is "urban" is baseless, to the best of my knowledge. Can you explain its basis?
Further, what does lecturing have to do with the students being armed? You are aware that some of them probably had a gun despite it being illegal, right? (Criminally-minded students will of course ignore such laws; as will some generally law-abiding ones who view the regulations in question as illiberal and morally repugnant.)
At first glance I get the impression of an attempt at a "they'd shoot me because they didn't like my lecture" joke, but I'm not going to assume that ... but that leaves me wondering what the point of the observation about the lecture was.
(And the entire thing reminds me of recent comments about how having it be legal to carry a gun into a church was a terrible idea... despite the fact that the regular parishioners are the least dangerous group one could really want, and that such a ban of course never stops someone intent on slaughter.
Such bans are, however, excellent at preventing the law-abiding from reacting to such a person with anything other than panic or a brave but quite likely futile unarmed attack. This was demonstrated just last year, was it not, when a church shooter was stopped by an armed non-police response.
Disarming The People does not make them safer. Never has. Never will, at least in any plausible hypothetical future.)
And does your paranoia extend to pepper spray? Do you think a rogue student in your lecture class might suddenly cause your eyes to water?
The discussion is about rights, not privileges. You would not ask students to deny themselves the right vote in order to attend college, nor do they give up the right to free speech (Well, that's the law, many examples to the contrary).
Dartmouth, Massachusetts
And then, of course, there is Hanover, New Hampshire.
.
I overlooked NJ when composing my "off the top of my head" list.
.
I'll admit that my preferences are entirely personal. But states don't have feelings, so I don't feel a need to exercise much care in harboring dislike for a state's policies. "May issue" as to CCW is sufficient to keep me from seriously considering taking up residence in a state.
.
I figure the animus is mutual. The degree of personal freedom that I prefer to have is more freedom than many state authorities intend to give their subjects. Rather than move in and create mutual annoyance, I just stay away.
Can you cite any case that forces colleges to have voting sites on their property or put up student's fliers on their walls? (public colleges excluded of course.)
Well, there is the potential for misuse. Kid decides his snack isn't spicey enough...
Let's consider the impact of a night safety shuttle. With the possible exception of a few universities in very bad areas no one honestly expects every attractive young woman to take such a shuttle. Indeed, at every university I've been at you can wander around campus or dorms at any hour and find a few pretty young woman walking on their own, especially since such services don't provide transit home from parties (where imparement likely raises the danger).
So what is the net effect of a night safety shuttle? It doesn't rob a potential rapist of targets or even temptation. Instead it merely makes the environment less safe by making campus slightly more deserted.
Should people who want to take extra safety precautions have that option? Sure. But neither students (through tuition) nor the university should be paying money for programs that seem likely to increase the net incidence of attacks.
So while I don't know which way to go on the issue presented here the above issue does convince me it probably wasn't thought through very carefully in any case.
.
Of course not. What college does THAT?
.
The law says a college can prohibit the possession of certain self-defensive means. Nobody is forced to go to that college, so nobody is forced to give up those means of self defense.
I agree. "Self Defense" classes are generally a waste of time. Most people don't have the killer instinct to engage in hand to hand combat. That's what it is, combat, potentially to the death. If you don't come away from the training with an eagerness to slit throats (only exaggerating a little) you've made your life more dangerous.
Hand to hand combat with a violent perp is almost suicidally dangerous. Victims would be better served learning techniques of passive acceptance, and practicing the 100 yard dash.
If you think you are going to get your attacker to run away, then you should leave your pepper spray and stun gun in the sock drawer. They will get you hurt. If you are willing to eviscerate someone and choke them with their intestines, if you are willing to gouge out an eye, if you are willing to hug your assailant while he convulses and bleeds out, stabbing him in the kidneys the whole time, then maybe you should consider hand to hand combat.
Size matters, as does strength. The typical female victim is smaller, weaker, and probably less mean than her opponent. He likes to fight and is not deterred by a few bruises. If you're not willing to taste the blood, avoid fighting.
A F(r)iend, who is a martial arts (not self defense) instructor once said, "If you come home from training and you've not been beat to snot, you've wasted your evening." That's the level you have to train at if you plan to fight. A "self defense" class that does not emphasize the ruthlessness of hand to hand combat is nothing more than a false security blanket.
The only self defense class that makes sense for most people, occurs on the pistol range.
It focuses on adult education. Back when I was a student there, the classes were mostly taught at the main UM campus in College Park at night and on weekends, but they also had classes at military bases like Fort Meade and at the Pentagon.
I don't know what kind of college you went to but I sure as hell can imagine a lot of misuse.
----
Drunk Guy 1: "Nah, man pepper spray doesn't hurt that much."
Drunk Guy 2: "Hell yah it does if it gets in your eyes."
Drunk Guy 1: "No way, my cousin was totally sprayed in the face once and it was no big deal."
Drunk Guy 2: "I bet you wouldn't let me spray you for $50"
----
That's not even contemplating the fun mixture of things like tazers and illicit drugs. One of the important social roles that college plays in student's lives is giving them a relatively safe place to experiment (yes with drinking/smoking too much too).
And what's the harm, there? Most cops get pepper sprayed as part of training. It's not particularly dangerous. Nor is it all that effective against a determined perp, except as part of a broader series of actions.
I tell my wife to use the pepper spray as a distractant, and then get her knife in. Like most people, she doesn't like to hear that, much.
Should have been better phrased, but the idea was that one could look at an urban campus' crime stats and compare them to the surrounding area, as the population density is roughly the same. Using the 2005 data, as it is the most complete for Boston City crime stats, Boston has a population of 608,000, and Boston University has 32,000 college students. (I have no affiliation with BU at all, other than I lived in Allston and shook my fist at it every day from the B-line trolley).
Crime for 2005, calculated as incidence per 1000 individuals: Boston—homicide 0.12, rape/sex assault 0.5, robbery 4.2, aggravated assault 7.3. For B.U.—zero homicides, rape/sex assault 0.16, robbery 0.03, aggravated assault 0.06.
So, an urban situated campus with 30,000 students on it (and BU is quite an urban campus, ie not a very defined footprint like many campuses), has a crime rate for its students far below that of Boston city itself. Now, a huge caveat is that BU is not spread out into all areas of the city, and if I had more time I would total up all the crime for every city-located University in Boston, but from a BU-centric point of view, allowing their students to carry currently-banned "self defense devices" would have a negligible impact on their student population crime rates. They are already far below that of the surrounding areas.
I don't think most assaults are carried out by pirates or navy seals. Probably more often by young men unsure of themselves and of mixed emotions about the assault. I mean presumably the same principle that causes so many law breakers to run when calm would better serve them applies here as well.
Also in the case of attempted rape sufficient genital trauma might dissuade the attacker from their plan.
Well that really depends on how you rate the relative badness of rape and death doesn't it? In the limiting case where you think rape is as bad or worse than death than no matter how small your odds self-defense is the right choice.
Ultimately the primary value of a self-defense class is the sense of confidence it engenders. If you look scared and nervous you are more likely to be preyed upon. It's just human nature. After all the attacker doesn't know if the confident unafraid woman is packing or a ruthless killer but they do know that the hesitant nervous woman isn't.
Overbroad and void for vagueness?
Is a pool cue-stick banned? Does it depend whether it comes apart (the heavy side makes a really nice club)?
Also a broad reading of this would ban bars of soap and socks since one can make blackjacks out of them easily enough. What about rocks? Did they remove all rocks?
What about coins and car keys?
Or do they require everyone to go around campus handcuffed and naked?
I didn't say it was a huge harm with pepper spray but I think you'd agree other things being equal less people who get sprayed with pepper spray the better.
Hell, I suppose there is even a chance of provoking a medical condition like asthma.
Well that's an interesting suggestion ;-)
Also I would note that something like a mugging or a threat to use a weapon will often occur within arms reach. Unarmed combat techniques won't protect you from someone who is out to SHOOT you. It will protect you against someone who is out to mug/rape/whatever. Different threat profiles.
The key with everything is to know what you are trying to protect yourself against and train accordingly.
So you can't drive on campus...
You don't even have to reference gasoline to get there. The car or other vehicle could be used as an offensive weapon and therefore is banned on that basis as well!
The point of the thread is whether it is constitutional for the law to permit a college to prohibit possession of certain self-defensive means.
Just to further expand on this, as I thought it was an interesting excercise:
Slightly expanding that line of thought, and extending it to include Boston College (popn 14,600) and Northeastern Universtity (popn 24,400) to get a larger data set over an expanded footprint of the city, if we total BU, BC, and NU and look at campus crime stats for 2005(incidence per 1000 students combining the stats from all three schools):
Homicide 0, rape/sex assault 0.3, robbery 0.08, aggravated assault 0.18.
Still below city totals. Of course, one should determine whether the University campus crime totals are included in the Boston city crime totals and subtract those from the city data, however I don't believe the stats for homicide, robbery or aggravated assault would go down much for the city data based on the very low numbers of campus incidences per 1000 students.
There certainly might be a basis for restricting some self-defensive means. For example, if I want to claim a hand grenade is a means of self-defence, that might be true in sme cases, but might not prevent the school from banning it.
However it seems that the goal of total disarming the campus is an issue which is fully separate. There is no bright line here anyway as almost anything can be a means of self-defence. I favor allowing concealed carry on campus (with appropriate permits) but these laws usually go so far beyond this as to be problematic for any number of other reasons. I am not even sure one needs to go to the second amendment to argue they are unconstitutional.....
I used no formal discipline, instead opting for scientific and anatomically correct dirty fighting.
At the reunion, about forty years later, three of the women who had been in that class attended. I talked to two. Before either of them said, "Hi." "Nice to see you." "Gee, you've put on weight.", they referred to the self-defense class.
Neither had been pestered during that time, which they ascribed to their self-confidence which, in turn, made them less attractive targets.
Can't hurt.
Oh, I suppose, but there are so many other things to ban, where do you start and where do you end? I just don't consider hot sauce to be all that evil, except that it says "Self Defense" on the label.
Nothing will protect you 100%. The best self defense is preparedness in general. We're arguing here, about which particulars are optimal, and that is a pretty personal decisision.
So in other words, as soon as you use the paring knife to cut the plastic packaging for your calculator, the paring knife is now a weapon and you are guilty of a misdemeanor?
Also I suppose whittling on campus with a pocket knife is a misdemeanor because any knife you use is clearly not used exclusively for whitelisted activities (and whittling isn't a whitelisted activity). Furthermore as soon as you end up with a sharp point on the stick that also constitutes another misdemeanor!
Any idea on case law regarding this statute as far as these sorts of things?
Which particulars are optimal? How about a self-defence program that includes:
1) Unarmed combat (not sports karate)
2) Knife fighting
3) Club fighting
4) Firearms training
I would certainly agree that each of these adds something to the curriculum and that such a curriculum would be far better than just one of them. Any disagreement from you?
But as long as those who might do me harm are allowed to use the property I will support allowing others to protect themselves.
And then, of course, there is Hanover, New Hampshire.
Which is where Dartmouth College is located. That is 187 miles from U-Mass Dartmouth, the university mentioned in EV's post.
(For what it is worth, Hanover also has vanishingly low rates of violent crime.)
By the way, your students are in good company. The same folks telling us college seniors, graduate students, and professors are too incompetent to have firearms also told us airline pilots would flip out and shoot unruly passengers, and off-duty and retired cops carrying would cost cities billions in liability. They predicted concealed carry would result in fender benders turning into firefights and the expiration of the “assault weapons” ban would leave bodies stacked like cordwood. Right now they’re saying that concealed handgun licensees carrying in national parks will poach animals and terrorize tourists. After twenty years, and dozens of gloom-and-doom predictions, the anti-gun folks have been wrong every single time.I agree. But said self-defense classes could be effective if they involved a handgun.
My daughter took such a class at Texas A&M. Halfway through she asked the instructor why they always practiced in gym clothes. Said instructor had never considered the possibility that maybe the class would be more effective if the techniques were practiced in what students were likely to be wearing when attacked. However, that includes the most dangerous Boston neighborhoods. I’d wonder what the comparison was between BU and neighborhoods of comparable socioeconomic status. Also it includes gang activity, which hopefully wouldn’t be part of the BU experience.
Sure, in that same perfect world where the police are always there to protect you and banning weapons is somehow conflated with banning criminal behavior.
You would think women on campus would be incensed at their lack of ability to defend themselves against rape. You would also think the school would be sympathetic. Alas, the schools seem to say, be a victim today and go to court tomorrow, this is a civilized society. Too much irony for me.
I agree. You're talking about some serious training, there, requiring some serious commitment.
From my f(r)iend's class:
Student: "When can we start doing unarmed combat against a knife?
F(r)iend: "When you're good enough to stop accidentally kicking me in the nuts."
Cops get sprayed with a very tiny amount of pepper spray. If you really unload on someone with pepper spray it is very effective. If you don't believe me, go have someone empty out a can of it on your face.
There is also no evidence to suggest that weapon free college campuses are safer than those where weapons are permitted.
Mass shootings like VA Tech as so rare, even though they are stunning when they happen, that impacts from weapons ownership policies on mass shootings are irrelevant to the overall costs and benefits of allowing weapons possession on campuses.
Why try to fix what there is little evidence to indicate is broken?
When I was at college, the regulation was that if you had a weapon, you had to register it with campus police. This meant taking the weapon from your dorm, walking it all the way across campus to the campus police building. I thought that was a reasonable requirement. In an emergency, it is nice to know whether there is likely to be ammunition in a dorm room (not only a violent crime situation but also things like fires etc).
However, let me ask you some questions:
If I have a pocket knife with a locking blade (and have been able to shake it open) does that make you feel more or less safe than if I had a gun? What about a rope garrotte? Where do you think the line should be drawn? Should we ban all knives, string, ropes, and similar things on campus for fear of crime?
Ummm.... Let's start by actually doing threat breakdowns, shall we?
Muggings
Rapes
Armed robbery
Determined assailant
Which of these benefits substantially from a gun? In which of these is a knife defence better? Can you count on getting a gun out in time in each of these?
Really, for most violent crime, you are going to be assaulted at close range. There are a number of practical reasons for this (making sure it isn't obvious what happened to potential witnesses, etc). In these cases, unarmed defence is probably best. There are other cases where a knife or a gun is most helpful.
I personally think that real self defence should start out with unarmed combat, then move to clubs. Then move to knives. Then move to guns as hand-to-hand weapons (i.e. hitting someone with the gun), and finally moving to firearms practice. However start with what you have available always (hands and feet) and move from there.
Still, some students may know (or feel) that they are at high risk...
Firearms came out as the safest and most effective means of self defense by a vast margin; something like a factor of three. And this was despite the fact that about half the firearms defenses only occurred after the victim had been injured.
Complete compliance was next in terms of victim safety. The various methods of "self defense" were nearly suicidally ineffective.
Hand to hand training and a killer attitude would help the victim in any defense situation, but it's a hard thing to measure, and uncommon in our society.
I still carry a knife where it is illegal to carry a gun, and a hatchet under the seat of my truck. Inside twenty feet, I can get that knife in, even if you shoot me to death in the process.
I think DOJ statistics contradict your assertions.
These are from Gun Facts version 5.0, for which you can google :
Fact: When a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of rape attacks are completed,
compared to 32% when unarmed. 120
Fact: The probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no
resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the
benefits are smaller at 1.4 times more likely to receive a serious injury.121
Footnotes:
120
U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American
Cities, 1979
121
Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey
That doesn't really disagree with me. A knife is a arms-reach weapon. And it is mostly compared to offering no resistance at all.
This doesn't really address unarmed combat techniques since I would be willing to bet they are practised by only a small number of sexual assault victims.
I think one of the difficulties here is determining threat profile. What is extremely successful in one threat profile (mugging at close range) might be suicide in another (armed robbery in a retail environment). Without knowing specifics it is extremely difficult (read impossible) to gauge any relevance of a given study to any specific threat.
Seriously, one could train in everything from unarmed combat through advanced physical security (looking at how to define and secure a defensible perimeter).
One other problem here is also unanswered in most of these studies: there is a tendency among lay people to confuse "martial arts" with "unarmed combat." In reality MOST martial arts schools teach "martial sports." Winning a karate championship is no measure of ability to defend oneself unarmed (this doesn't mean there is no such thing as combat-worthy Okinawan Karate, but just that people don't teach it commonly).
Fact: You are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun. In
episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates were: 119
Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing at all 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45%
119 - British Home Office
---
I seem to remember seeing a similar statistic from American sources (FBI maybe?), but I can't find it at the moment.
-m@
Robbery is a wide range of things. It could include mugging (where unarmed combat, which is not nonviolent resistance, could be extremely effective) to a case where someone pulls a gun in a retail establishment from a safe distance. From a threat profile, these are not comparable. Without more breakdown (since robbery involves force, the distance involved in that force, etc.) it is impossible to apply the study to any given robbery except by using common sense!
Someone points a gun at you from 10 feet away and tells you to give him/her your wallet, knife or unarmed combat will be STUPID. Ditto with someone pulling a gun on you from just outside arms reach but where there are movement obstacles imparing your motion (for example, a retail counter).
On the other hand, someone pulls you aside on the street and pulls a gun on you, that is a very different thing.
In ANY self-defence, you MUST determine exactly what you are trying to defend against. Now, a handgun can be pretty useful from a hand-to-hand perspective too. However, you can't take a crime where the threat profile is highly variable, like robbery, and expect this to be particularly useful as a general principle.
2) No town, city, county, special purpose district, quasi-municipal corporation or other unit of government may prohibit a person eighteen years old or older, or a person fourteen years old or older who has the permission of a parent or guardian to do so, from purchasing or possessing a personal protection spray device or from using such a device in a manner consistent with the authorized use of force under RCW 9A.16.020.
I have yet to hear of single problem stemming from this, and I have been here 20 years.
It's not the most effective thing around (according to LEO friends, sometimes it works like a charm, and sometimes if makes the guy mad), but it doesn't require a whole lot of expertise, and there is almost no downside. Police use it routinely, consider it lower on the continuum of force than fists, and don't seem to be offing asthmatics and emphysema patients with it very often. They put it lower on the continuum precisely because they think you're more likely to be seriously hurt if they punch you.
The woman I taught with would start every class with a talk along the lines of "Yes, you'll learn some defensive techniques here, but if you get to the point where you need to use them, you've already lost the first battle." We really emphasized staying out of the fight in the first place, rather than how to win it. And the physical techniques we taught were targeted less toward overwhelming the attacker with force and more with buying a few seconds of breathing room to make possible an escape from the situation.
Also for those saying firing range practice is the only thing that is important, those few seconds (if one also had a knife or a gun) might be enough to bring that into play too.
But then, when we counsel rape victims, we always drive home a simpler message: "If you survived the attack, you made the right choices."
And, to some extent, the choice of whether to draw a gun (or knife, or TASER, or whatever) and engage the threat, or whether to make a strategic retreat, is a very individual one, which will depend on an individual assessment of the situation. Which comes back to my last comment: "If you survived the attack, you made the right choice."
Absolutely. The fight is often lost or won in the mind and in the situational posture long before the first blow is struck. Selecting the right tactics is a matter of mental preparedness, the most important aspect of which is losing the "It can't happen to me" attitude.
Forewarned is forearmed, and all that.
I am somewhat neutral on the subject of weapons too. My Kempo teacher always used to say, "Put your opponent on the ground as fast as possible. Then you can retreat if you want." We trained with clubs, knives and fists. We never sparred. Most of the training was kata forms only. The training was always done with the assumption that the attacker would be substantially larger, heavier and stronger, so the compensating training was speed and accuracy.
However, knowing HOW to pick up and use almost anything as an effective weapon is an amazingly useful thing. It also provides better assessment of an armed threat, and an ability to gauge not only the size and strength but also the training of an attacker (or even co-workers but that is another story).
The problem with most self-defence courses though is that real self-defence and unarmed combat is hard and takes substantial training. I don't think you can teach people it in a weekend workshop. Really it takes years of practice to master. This is why threat assessment and profiling is so important at the beginning.
One thing you seem to be doing right in your workshops is the idea that threat assessment and situational has to come first. If you can teach one thing in a workshop, that is the one thing you can try to teach well. If you don't teach it, though, one thing you should look at is how to spot training in a potential adversary. This isn't such of an important issue since USUALLY, training corresponds also with impulse control and this would make one LESS likely to be criminals. However, it is still an extremely useful skill to have. (Types of fists, balance and stance, and these things tend to be the best indicators of training. Also which hand is holding a weapon, whether it is back or forward, etc.)
subjectscitizens, "You live in an area with lower-than-average crime statistics, so you'd not allowed to defend yourself"?pintler, thanks for bringing up the Washington State reference. I'm with you here, except for the futility of it: in all the dozens of times I've brought up WA's lack of a training requirement for concealed-carry licensees, and the fact that our accident and crime rate by permit-holders is as good as everyone else's, not once has anyone ever responded--not even to argue against my assertion. Let's see if you have any better luck here.
I would rather have no choice but to run away from an armed attacker than risk being in the same room as someone who can defend themselves.
People who fight attackers should be prosecuted for armed assault.
Guns are scary. People who carry guns are scary.
1. Loss of tax exempt status for racially segregationist policies. (Bob Jones University. Can't say I'm crying too hard about that, except in a very philosopic way.)
2. Requirements to implement federal policies concerning sex and sports--even for schools that received no direct federal funding. (Was it Grove City College that got caught on this because some federal funds were given directly to GCC students?)
I am a little sympathetic to the concern about drunken college students with guns. But drunken college students with cars, knives, chairs, balconies, etc. are a pretty serious problem, too. Having abandoned in loco parentis in the 1960s for loco students, guess what? They have a problem. Look at this list of problems that are associated with college students, what do you find is common to all?
alcohol and guns
alcohol and balconies
alcohol and penises
alcohol and cars
I am beginning to think that focusing on guns isn't the right concern.
Realistically, most states require you to be 21 to have a carry permit. This means that a few seniors, a lot of grad students, faculty, and staff, are the only ones likely to be eligible. With the dominant victimhood mentality on most campuses, I expect that relatively few people will be carrying. And guess what? Those who pass the background check requirement don't worry me. It's the ones that Cho Seung-Hui that worry me--because if you plan mass murder and then suicide, a gun control violation is rather irrelevant.
It is certainly a bad idea.
right... because a policy forbidding such conduct means nobody is carrying.
lol
fwiw, i went to a grad school in WA state that prohibited carry. i chose to violate that rule (not illegal, just a violation of school policy).
There has been a rise of violent crime (robbery at gunpoint, gang-related violence) over the past two years. No surprise, given the economy and the fact that a "crack alley" is just two blocks from campus.
And our "security force" is unarmed. It is good for writing parking tickets and can "observe and report."
That is, they can call 9-1-1, but can't even get involved if someone is getting beaten at the student center, as happened just a month ago. Security just "watched" someone get a slice across their face requiring 20+ stitches.
So, the students are disarmed. The faculty are disarmed. The staff &administration are disarmed. And the security force is disarmed.
Seems like an opportune place to commit crime?
Once you reach the age when you can carry a weapon, you should be allowed to carry it.
Once again, "unintended consequences" for "feel good" rules.
My view is that, in close quarters, you are almost always best opening with unarmed techniques. However, getting a gun or a knife into play pose different problems at different ranges, at least if you are planning to threaten to shoot. Using it as a bludgeon is again somewhat different.
However, I was always taught that a quarter of a second in close combat is significant, and that an eight of a second os often significant. If you can draw a gun, aim it, and determine if you are going to fire it in a quarter of a second.... Also a knife (or a gun, in some cases) doesn't have to be brought completely into play. Bringing it partially into play can open up possibilities.
Once again, if I were assaulted in close quarters and carrying a gun, I would *first* respond with fists, and follow it up with the gun. Knives are fundamentally different and pose entirely different concerns, tactics, strategy, etc.
Unarmed combat is complimentary to carrying other weapons.
Is this new? A friend was assigned to Fallon NAS in Nevada, and the only requirement was that firearms had to be registered with the base commander.
It is certainly a bad idea.
It must be "new".
Although the regulation of firearms in base family housing can be subject to the discretion of the base commander, in my experience they usually just had to be declared and documented with base security.
In the past, the BX/PXs sold firearms and ammunition right on base.
It's my experience with people living at places like NAS Alameda, NavSta Treasure Island, and USCG Support Center/CGAS Kodiak, residents were allowed personal firearms in their homes but they had to be declared.
OTOH, USCG Training Center Alameda required personal weapons to be stored in the base armory. They could be checked in/out as desired. But then, that base had no family housing.
I think one thing that is important is that the discipline which comes from studying multi-layered self-defence as well as the abilities and perceptive changes are going to make one a heck of a lot more able to address a threat than someone who thinks that self defence training starts and ends on the firing range.
Heck there are a lot more things one can do with a gun than just shoot someone with it, and some of these could be quite useful at times.
P.S. Sorry for the previous typo of "statue" for "statute."
Why don't turn our colleges into the Wild wild West and whoever is the best shooter wins.
Or could it be that 2 amendment worshipping and contemporary misrepresentation of intentions of almost 300 years past is getting a little bit too ridiculous?
Right. At eyeball to eyeball range, you need to do something to give you time and distance to deploy your firearm. Generally, with a firearm, distance is your friend. The better you are with a firearm, the more distance is your friend. If nothing else, it's hard to attack you with fists or knives when you're across the street. ;-)
Seriously, a good part of the reality of using firearms in self defense, is not having them go boom. You need to be willing and determined to fire, but it gives you the opportunity to not fire. That decision can be made in a remarkably short time. I have had the opportunity to resort to firearms on several occasions. I was never required to discharge, and only one instance was reported to the police. This is another instance where distance is your friend.
Going back to eyeball to eyeball range, the would-be shootist needs to develop some techniques whereby the sometimes demanding and vulnerable action of presenting and aiming the firearm are "automated." You don't have a helluva lot of time to waste, as you pointed out, and firearms retention is a serious issue within grabbing distance.
There are some simple biomechanical tricks that can be used to "aim without aiming", but I've never seen them taught in a regular firearms training class.
You've been watching too many Spaghetti Westerns. That doesn't reflect history at all.
So, there were no colleges back in the days of the so-called "Wild wild West"?
Whoda thunk?
Honestly, here is where unarmed combat techniques come in really for a couple of reasons:
1) If you aim with one hand, you have another hand to protect your firearm. At short distance aiming isn't so hard against an untrained enemy. Against a trained enemy, having another hand available for striking is helpful.
2) Coordination between hands, and understanding what close-range uses a handgun has can be extremely helpful. Who expects to be smacked on the head by someone using a handgun as a blunt object? A handgun in motion isn't always out of play.
Between the above elements, the ability to retain and keep a firearm in play as a threat both as a blunt object and as a potentially lethal weapon is much improved. Also:
3) There are a number of ways of grabbing distance.
Granted the way people described the martial art I studied was that it was like training to have a fist fight in a phone booth, so my views of space are a bit different than most. One reason I trained myself to use swords was to provide views of dealing with larger intervals of space than I was used to dealing with.
Colleges will be held liable if they allow pepper sprays in dorms and those weaponso harm others needlessly. It's not about a disposition against defensive freedoms, it's about an aversion to liability.
And I can't really blame them. 18-year-olds, all armed with pepper spray, will show a higher incidence of improper than proper use. And allowing their possession creates a very ugly fear among admin. It's not just the question of single liability, but reputation.
I see the other side of the coin, but ust as important as the right of self-defense, is the right to enact policies and procedures on one's own property, among one's own residents, that limit your own civil liability.
But one factor that should be considered is that many fewer university students are likely to be able to effectively use any weapon in self-defense. Those who come from the middle and upper classes (from which the majority of university students are drawn) are vastly less likely to have any exposure to violence and more likely to have the general rules of civilized society (do not physically harm another human being *ever*) driven into them.
Likewise, they're typically in an area surrounded by their peers which accounts for the fact that there's a much smaller chance of encountering violent crime that needs to be deterred.
On the other hand, they are also of a prime age to do stupid thing (like get drunk) that increase the chance of misusing such weapons and accidentally injuring or killing each other.
So, if there's any place in America where allowing weapons is likely to have a negative payoff in terms of human suffering, I suspect it's the universities and institutions of higher learning.
The "Wild West" was quite a bit less wild than some people think. See Roger D. McGrath's posthole survey Gunfighters, Highwaymen, and Vigilantes: Violence on the Frontier. He examines two mining camps widely regarded as the worst for violence: Bodie, California, and Aurora, Nevada. A few largely voluntary subcultures of young single men had very high rates of murder; these towns viewed in toto had effectively no violent crime, and he ascribes this largely to the high level of gun possession. Robbery (except for stagecoaches) was almost unknown, as was burglary and rape. Murder outside these saloon-based subcultures was very rare. Even including the murder problem, these towns that were regarded as notoriously violent in the Old West compare favorably to almost any big city in America today.
instead of all this silly, nonfactual conjecture about why "institutions of higher learning" should be zones where civil rights, like the right to carry, shouldn't apply...
how about actually LOOKING AT EVIDENCE (vs. speculation) about what ACTUALLY happens when firearms ARE allowed.
like in WA state
or Utah.
and you will see that contrary to your speculation, there is no "negative payoff" for (god forbid) allowing people to exercise their constitutional rights.
Completely agree.
I think most university kids won't have firearms but they will have plenty of other things that could be deadly weapons handy. While it has been said that computers make it possible to make more mistakes faster than any invention since taquila and handguns, the actual evidence is that guns are sufficiently rare and responsibly owned on college campuses that this is a non-issue.
The Navy and Air Force are scared of guns. The Army a little less so, and the Marines even less so. But overall, since officers and senior enlisted are promoted less for doing things right than not having anything go wrong on their watch, stupid rules like this are put in place.
Ultimate stupid rule: when you deploy to Iraq, you can't take a knife on board the plane you are flying into the country on. Standard TSA rules at this point.
I used to brew my own beer in college. Turned out I wasn't violating any Washington State laws in the process despite the fact that I was under the legal drinking age, since home-brewing is exempted from almost every state alcohol control law.
Come on Eugene, would you let your students get away with arguing that decisions in other states are binding precedent in interpreting the language of the Massachusetts state constitution?
1. Most students living in dorms are not old enough to buy pistols anyway, since in most states the age requirement is 21.
2. Ditto with concealed weapon permits. In my state the age requirement is 25, much older than most students. Pistols are the most portable form of lethal self defense, and if students are carrying them they probably are not living in the dorm.
3. I'm not sure I'd like weapons in dorms because of the atmosphere of partying, alcohol and drug abuse. There's also the problem of theft given the living conditions. Anyone who has lived in a dorm situation should be able to recognize the difficulty of keeping anything hidden or safe.
4. For staff and students living off campus I don't see any problems at all with them being armed as long as local law is being followed.
5. As for less lethal weapons like mace and tasers, I don't understand why they wouldn't be allowed.
No. Just no. Weapons are not to be kept for extended periods of time in the barracks, but are perfectly legal in housing. Which is why I used to leave my guns with a trusted squad leader. And yes, I think even that restriction in the barracks is silly.
And to the tard who is scared to teach legally armed students....Stats show that legally armed civilians are more law-abiding and less violent than police officers by a factor of two and the general populace by a factor of seven. And if, god forbid, something terrible happens in your classroom, and I am there, you want, pray and need for me to have a gun. I am better trained than most SWAT officers, hold a Top Secret security clearance and a CPL license for my state (Michigan). I would LOVE to teach a class where every last person was legally carrying.
I love watching you nanny-staters in action.
I think we should enact legislation based on what people like you can "imagine."
It is really practical.
Hysterical.
I think you should go on making points like this.
There are people who actually look at data regarding concealed carry and murder rates and then there are people who insist they are right.
Pencils, pens, shoelaces, belts, rolled up newspapers, ....
"The MIND is the weapon, you apes, that thing in your paw is a TOOL!"
On the other hand, the mace is one of the oldest lethal military weapons known to man. I suspect this is why variations on that theme were seen as symbols of civil authority among both the Hittites and the Romans (though the Roman symbol was far removed from the military weapon).
The Seung-Hui Cho case is instructive in at least one sense: his ability to isolate the victims made for a far bloodier massacre than would otherwise have been possible. The gunman's tactics would be unworkable if any students or faculty present had been armed, and he was apparently confident they were not. Whether the presumed greater likelihood of accidents is more compelling is an open question, but the inability of even VA Tech (with an on-campus police force complete with SWAT-like ERT team) to protect its personnel does not inspire confidence in institutional security measures.
I think the actual policy depends on the Post Commandant. As Anon 1111 pointed out, the military is scared of weapons. It's the fear of having a screwup. We'll charge into the gates of Hell with a handpump, but tremble at the knees with the thought of screwing up and wrecking our career. It's the peacetime military syndrome.
There were plenty of cases during Desert Storm where GIs were ordered to unload weapons while moving to contact. Can't have any accidents, you see. Of course, given our casualty rate during DS (which would not have been significantly altered had neither side been issued ammunition) they've been proven correct. Be very careful of what lessons you learn when everything goes right. {Rolling eyes}
The weapons policy when I was on active, was that Personally Owned Weapons in the barracks were kept in the arms room. They were a real PITA to inventory every month. ;-) If a soldier wanted his weapon when the armory was locked, he had to plan ahead. It was then kept with the Charge of Quarters sergeant, in his arms locker. The soldier could sign it out at any time.
All weapons, civilian and military, are strictly accounted for by signing in and signing out. They are inventoried by count daily and by serial number weekly. And if you think that's a PITA, wait until someone loses one. I was Survey Officer on a lost M16 once. What a bureaucratic nightmare.
Personally, if you can’t trust soldiers with weapons, they aren’t soldiers. What are the chances that you’ll have a sword when you need to protect yourself? Seniors? Grad students? Professors? The same people who tell us 21-year-old college students are incompetent also claimed:
Off-duty and retired cops carrying will shoot innocent people and cost cities billions in liability.
Airline pilots can’t be trusted with handguns because they’ll flip out and shoot unruly passengers.
CHLs in national parks will become poachers.
(Giggle test failure)
Colleges - and "elite" institutions and people - who oppose the right to bear arms and the culture of self-reliance and self-defense typically also want to treat the general population as serfs in other ways.
The intent of the Framers - that the right of free men to keep and bear arms in defense of themsleves, their familes, their property, and their liberty, shall not be infringed - is clear.
I choose not to be a serf. Pistol training next week.
Sword training is actually aimed at complimenting space-management skills of the others. Although I sometimes do keep a bokken etc, around the house in easy reach, the main reason to study is not to use a sword.
Most of my training is aimed at extremely close-quarters fights. Someone tries to mug me and I will move *closer* to them before I move away. People describe it as training for a fist-fight in a phone booth. A lot of my movement training assumes variable range but is VERY closely tied to the assumption that I may be in combat with actual body-to-body contact.
With a sword, some of this training is still evident. And in fact the broadsword forms I have developed are all forms where I move in and end up in extremely close quarters. However, these forms address distances of 8, 6, 4, 2, and contact distances (contact being non-striking contact of chest/side/knees to chest/side/knees). Also a 3-ft sword trains you in space awareness in a way that other weapons to not. I don't practice with my kids around me with live steel, but I *will* practice with wood with the kids around, and I *will* practice alone in a room full of furniture. We have not had an accident with wood/person contact or with damaged furniture yet. I expect to start my eldest son with some of these forms next year.
Sword training also provides a number of other skills that I discovered (the hard way) were undeveloped in my other forms. These include weapons control, weapons-based checks, advanced balance, and so forth. These are all closely connected, and consequently this helps my unarmed and stick-fighting skills too.
So the sword is largely a matter of skill development rather than an idea that I will be wearing one when attacked. At the same time, it helps show how such
training can be complimentary to other training.....
Very true. Also the relaxation/exercise programs (Tai Chi) are probably going to serve you better in street self-defense than the martial sports are.....
I should have been more clear. I suspect that very few were competently trained in systems of unarmed combat.
most of them are remarkably stupid AND failt to take advantage of technology and information. the GOOD ones do, and they are a challenge. most criminals are phenomenally unprofessional.
one example: pursuit policies are public record. anybody can research, often just by using the internet, what various agencies in their area do in regards to whether to pursue or not.
for example, several agencies in the greater seattle area pursue for BARK felonies only (Burglary, Arson, Rape, Kidnapping), or similar restrictions are employed. Iow, they will NOT pursue a stolen car if it takes off , at least not if they are following policy.
Other agencies WILL.
so, why wouldn't a criminal specifically target vehicles for theft in the areas that are under jurisdiction of the "no pursuit" agencies? answer: because they are stupid and don't take advantage of resources available to them.
I don't think I've ever delivered a lecture that was that bad.
I suspect that VC posters range on the high end of college/university classroom hours experienced, the professors even more so. Has anyone actually witnessed a classroom discussion violent enough that students were physically assaulting each other or their prof? Or are you still more familiar with classes where students go to sleep?
My how things have changed over the last 40 years. I kept a 8MM Mauser in my dorm room at Utah State and went hunting with it regularly in the hills behind campus on the weekends I didn't head for home. I was not unique in that respect.
Bob
Exactly.
I remember, when I was in high school, we were required to give a speech on a controversial topic. It didn't take a psychic to determine that mine would have something to do with guns.
My English teacher called me aside and asked, "Do you intend to bring a gun on campus to use as a prop? Because if you do, we need to figure out how to secure it."
Today, I'd probably have been SWAT raided as a precaution. {ROLLING EYES}
Now, we have nimrods claiming that the simple possible presence of a firearm in their classroom would render them incapable of discharging their duties as a teacher. Seriously? I love argument and debate, but I've never seen anything in a college classroom approach anything in the vicinity of a physical confrontation. How much rarer would the use of a weapon be? Especially given the very strong data showing legal CCW holders to be remarkably peaceful folks. No, this really has nothing to do with danger, and everything to do with a deranged sense of reality.
And more to the point of the OP, banning all self defense tools is just insane. This is the logical philosophical and legal result of the process whereby individuals are deprived of their responsibility. We can't hold college students liable for anything, so the college must be, and the college won't be held liable for mace or pepper spray. (incidentally, ask anyone who's been in the eighty-deuce, chemical sprays can have a tolerance built up for them, small downside.)
There was a double murder in a dorm when I was there in the 80s. Ex-boyfriend, a non-student, was let into the dorm by "helpful" residents who recognized him. He proceeded to shoot ex-girlfriend and her roommate. Then he led the police on a car chase before shooting himself.
For most women, the late-night assault by a stranger outdoors is a pretty remote possibility. The real risk is indoors, from men who are known to their victims.
To the person who said you can't make anything safe and secure in a dorm, you're right. This includes the physical safety of the residents, at least in long-corridor dorms where people are coming and going at all hours. There's even a prejudice against asking what strangers are doing there, because chances are they're just there for a bit of recreation with the residents.
Should all women be allowed to carry weapons in that environment? How about all men? Just people who have been through bad break-ups recently? The environment itself would seem to be the problem, and I don't know if there's a decent solution that relies on individual self-defense. But I still think people should have that option when their environment is inherently insecure.
GOAL could probably help you, but Massachusetts is largely discretionary as to issuing of Licenses to Carry by non-student adults, with varying standards by municipality, the state bill of rights notwithstanding. Boston and Cambridge are notoriously difficult places to get an LTC.
Also, in Massachusetts pepper-spray is legally defined as "ammunition" which means that you must have a permit to possess it.
The law that bars self-defense with firearms on campus, does not exclude ammunition. So, with a permit to possess the pepper spray, at least you are not in violation of state law.
And 40 years ago, I learned to shoot in a rifle range in the basement of the administrative building of (then) Eastern Montana College.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.