Vermont has one of the most "liberal" gun policies in the nation: That is you don't need a license to carry a gun, openly or concealed. Chapter 1, Article 16 of the State Constitution is quite clear about this
“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.”
No permit is required to purchase a rifle, shotgun, or handgun. In fact, Vermont is unique among States in that you don't have to me a resident to carry a weapon in Vermont, you just have to be here. But apparently this courtesy, this right to defend yourself, does not extend to the campus of the University of Vermont.
The students of UVM are not allowed to carry a taser, or even pepper spray, let alone a gun, for fear of being expelled.
"The university's position is that weapons or likely facsimiles thereof, are not allowed on campus," said UVM Police Chief Gary Margolis.
Margolis says the UVM ban on tasers and mace pepper spray makes sense because the greatest threat comes from the devices themselves-- not attacks by a stranger.
In the early morning hours of October 7 , Gardner-Quinn was walking home to her [UVM] campus dormitory after a night out with friends. She borrowed a cell phone rom a passerby,Brian Rooney , to call an acquaintance. A jewelery store surveillance camera captured Gardner-Quinn walking north with Rooney at approximately 2:34 am. [1]Six days later, her body was found by hikers near Huntington Gorge in Richmond, Vermont. An autopsy revealed she had been sexually assaulted, beaten and strangled. [2]
This particular incident has encouraged many a UVM student, particularly females, to risk expulsion in exchange for personal safety.
"I own a stun gun. It doesn't shoot out, it's direct contact. Not a taser," she explained.
The UVM student spoke with us with her identity concealed because she owns a stun gun that temporarily paralyzes with high voltage and excruciating pain. Carrying a stun gun or other self-defense items like pepper spray on campus could get her expelled because it violates the UVM weapons policy.
But she says she has good reason to own one.
"A good friend of mine got it for me after what happened last year with Michelle Gardner-Quinn."
...Our student stun gun owner doesn't want that to happen to her."I'm using it for my own safety and to me that's more important than anything."
Reporter Brian Joyce asked: "Worth expulsion?"
"Well if it came to my life, I would rather be expelled then to not be here today," she answered.
Other students across the nation are reminded about how vulnerable they as we mark the 1st Anniversary of the shootings at Virginia Tech
"Would you rather just sit there and cower underneath a desk when someone executes you or would you rather have a chance to defend your life? That's what it really boils down to."
That was said by Michael Flitcraft, a 23-year-old sophomore at the University of Cincinnati. He's a member of Students For Concealed Carry on Campus.
Police are great: after the fact. But no one can expect them to be at the scene of a crime while it is happening except by random happenstance. The ability to prevent a crime is reserved for the individuals involved at the time and place of its actual occurrence. And for that, the victim must be armed, trained in the weapons operation, and have the will to defend themselves.
Vermont, with its obvious lack of gun restrictions remains 48th out of 50 States for violent crime. So it is clear that UVM Police Chief Gary Margolis is wrong when he claims that "greatest threat comes from the devices themselves". I mean when was the last case of someone using a stun gun, taser, or mace in anger, or even accidentally on the UVM campus?
It's not like they are not being carried by students, especially female students, in violation of the campus rules. So where is the evidence that the greatest threat comes from the devices themselves?
"I'd go back to the discussion we have to have with men and women about where are violence-against-women crimes most likely to occur and how do we educate our population about those crimes, versus this belief that simply carrying a weapon of some sort is going to be the best defense," said Margolis.
How about you allow theses self-protection devices, and yes even guns, on campus after the student has registered the device, passed a background check, and can demonstrate that they have been trained to use the device? Something like a concealed carry permit?
I've mentioned that Vermont has one of the lowest violent crime rates and it doesn't require a concealed carry permit. Since Texas allowed concealed carry in 1995,
- Per 100,000 population, rates for aggravated assault fell from 429.3 to 370.
- Robberies declined from a rate of 179.8 to 146.8.
- The rape rate was down to 38.1 per 100,000 from 45.5.
- And murders fell from 9 per 100,000 to 6.1.
Since carrying a concealed weapon in the Lone Star State was legalized, overall violent crimes have declined from 644.2 per 100,000 to 561.
What's more, people with concealed carry permits are less likely to commit a crime
One study found that in Florida CCW holders were 300 times less likely than the general population to commit a crime. A Texas study found that CCW holders in that state were "5.7 times less likely to commit a violent crime, and 14 times less likely to commit a non-violent offense." There's a simple reason CCW holders as a group are so law-abiding -- they have to be law-abiding citizens in order to qualify for a permit in the first place.
And they are prepared to be first responders in the case of a violent incident that is either directed at them personally, or as part of a group.
With the one year Anniversary of the shootings at Virginia Tech upon us, it does us no good to set a policy the ensures a population is unarmed and then advertise the fact in a way that a deranged killer can take advantage of.
Why do you think that is?
