OFF TO COLLEGE: TEXTBOOKS, CHECK; LAPTOP, CHECK; BACKPACK, CHECK; GLOCK, CHECK; SPARE CLIP, CHECK

Your friendly host in the Basin grew up around firearms and likes them not because he is bitter and from a small town, but because he likes them. Your host was one the first purchasers of an Illinois FOID card (at a very tender age, of course) and still maintains one. Inconveniently, I have also been shot twice. Each time, I found it annoying. As regular readers here also know, someone I loved very much was killed with a stolen gun, stolen from a careless police officer who was then afraid to report it missing. (As an enlightened Christian, I have stopped wishing he rot in Hell, but he's not on my Christmas Card List, either. But I digress)

The point here is, smartass title notwithstanding, I think the topic of concealed carry on campus is worthy of discussion. (please now administer smelling salts to my academic and acutely liberal friends--I said "discussion" not immediate implementation.)

An argument can be made that the possibility of armed, skilled folks in defined spaces deters "cause" crimes and violent creeps. The adoption of the original Sky Marshall plan coincided with the virtually elimination of expatriot kidnappings in the early 70's.

On the other hand, the combination of gun security, adolescent judgment and alcohol argues against on-campus unfettered "citizen" concealed carry in the formerly proposed Florida mode and somewhat like the Missouri plan. Finally, there are jurisdictional problems with mere concealed carry. Even if, for example, ISU permitted it, Normal might not, Bloomington might not. Even if Purdue permitted it, concealed carry could still be barred in Campus Town (part of W. Lafayette). In many urban campuses, the town and the campus are almost indistinguishable. An authorized carrier could be legal one side of the street and illegal the other.

Moreover, the gun safety training for simple concealed carry is insufficient to prepare the carrier for a hostage, active shooter or any other "shoot/stand down" decision. This is especially so when the carrier is on campus with another priority or three (meet girls, get a degree, meet girls, not necessarily in that order--did I mention "meet girls"?).

For all the foregoing reasons, your friendly Basin opposes "mere" concealed carry. That, however, does not mean there is not an argument for some permissively armed people on campus.

If a young person had a background check, peace officer training (for which he could get either paid or college credit) and was then a paid (even if just some kind of "stand-by" pay) employee of the University and answered to a security chain of command, I think it would be productive and might deter some misguided souls from hurting innocents. In some states, there are lesser standards for "constables" or "conservators of the peace". That training would probably suffice.

We could call this "enhanced conceal carry" "U-Marshalls" or "The Whack Job Surprise Box" for all I care. It would be very important that they had no other enforcement duties. They could not be drug cops or plagiarism cops, gambling cops or even bad check cops. Safety and weapons control would be their only assignment.

Would there come a time when one of these conservators would hurt someone or his gun would be put to unacceptable uses on a campus? Yeah, human beings are always going to defeat safety systems. Would this prevent all Va. Tech/NIU capers? No. Secret Service doesn't prevent all attacks on public officials. Would it deter some? I suspect it would. Would it shorten the duration of some? Maybe.

It seems to me there are fundamentally three arguments against my "U-Marshalls" proposal: First, it would mean the "U-Marshalls" themselves would have to divide their attention between vigilance and learning; Second, it adds a danger to the campus which wasn't there before (the firearm itself); and Third, the cost/benefit ratio of doing it just doesn't justify.

Let's be honest, a part of the objection is just the idea by some that there should be no firearms anywhere but, particularly, in the halls of ivy.

But, back to the arguments, Of course the U-Marshalls/Conservators would have their attention divided. Most everybody at the U's have to do two things or more at once. Nearly everyone has some kind of part time income gig. Graduate Assistants have to learn and watch the class for disruption/cognition at the same time. This is only different in kind, not in degree. Moreover, the background check into the Conservators already suggests they are the kind of persons who will be taking their U. experience seriously. Second, yes, until smartguns are perfected and universally available, this is an issue. But none of the recent uprisings has been from a purloined gun. In fact, I can't remember an on-campus incident where a gun has been lifted from a law enforcement officer. That's too much trouble when guns are so easy to get, anyhow. The third argument (cost/benefit) ratio is awfully hard to calculate. How much killing would be prevented? How much of the cost gets plowed right back into the university by having the UMarshall pay tuition fees and meal m0ney. Finally, how much benefit does society get from having a responsible young person start serving his community and showing ultimate responsibility at the age of 19 or so. We would have to plot a whole generation of UMarshalls to see what the benefit was, before we could weigh it against the putative cost. I'm guessing the UMarshalls would be not only successful but inclined to public service in ways which benefit the larger community. Isn't that a large part of what U's do?

Is this radical? Yeah. Does what we're doing (or not doing) now invite more on-campus gun violence. It's hard to see it any other way.

Perhaps this discussion should be longer and agonize more over these points. I certainly understand some campuses would never be able to accept or implement UMarshalls/Conservators of the Peace. I get that it wouldn't work for a Quaker School. I'm sure some would argue it wouldn't work for SLU or UIC. There would probably have to be some kind of informed consent or at least acknowledgment from entering students. Maybe for cultural and neighborhood reasons it works in Baton Rouge and not for Ann Arbor.

At the end of the day, higher educators and administrators have a duty to discuss rearranging the monopoly of force so it is not securely and solely held by the criminally inclined and the deeply disturbed.

Comments of anti-gun hystericals and Free Love Concealed Carry Doc Hollidays are equally welcome. If you think this one is easy, I urge you to think again before you write. After you think carefully, I'd love to have your comments.