Let's get this right out in the open and up front like: To those who don't know, I work on the MSU campus. However, I am not a University employee. That written, I think I have the wiggle room to comment every once in a while on University policy. I've been pretty vocal about the fact that I don't like "feel good" policy, either from the government or the University administration that works for them. It is often pointless, counter-productive and, let's face it, stupid.
Though I don't think this qualifies as stupid, the new proposed University weapons policy certainly qualifies as pointless. I'll leave it to others to argue the 'counter-productive' because they are often more fear-driven and extreme in their fantasies than I am. I'll just stick to the pointless aspects.
Just so that we're clear, these are the weapons that are proposed to be banned from campus:
rifles, shotguns, handguns, knives with blades four (4) inches or
longer, explosives, swords, nunchucks, throwing stars and other martial
arts weapons, crossbows, compound bows, recurve bows, pepper spray
(except for small, personal protection dispensers), BB guns, paintball
guns, dangerous chemicals, and non-functioning replicas that could be
confused with actual firearms.
That sounds like a very thorough list, yes? It is also ambiguous. Two of the very most effective "martial arts" weapons of all time are the long staff (Bo) and the short staff (Jo). I may be in error here, but I find it awfully pointless to ban sticks on campus. The ambiguity goes further, however when one considers what a 'replica' gun can look like. Does this include squirt guns? Who adjudicates the confusion involved in an appearance? The policy prohibits compound and recurve bows, but I have a flat bow. Banned? Long Bows? Native ceremonial bows? MSU does have a very vibrant native student population. And would somebody please explain to me, just what exactly is a dangerous chemical? Bleach? Ammonia? Windex?
This is what the AP article has to say is the impetus behind revising the policy:
MSU was the site of a double fatal shooting in 1990, and the university
has long had a policy concerning the possession of weapons on campus.
But campus administrators found that it was troublingly vague after the
tragedy at Virginia Tech,
I don't think I'm wrong in pointing out that the policy is *still* troublingly vague. To that degree, it remains pointless. If the effort is to control school shootings, then it is pointless to prohibit BB guns, wrist-rockets (oops, not banned), sticks, banana knives and and water pistols.
For the record, I was an MSU student (non -trad) in 1990. The shooting was done with a hunting rifle, and was, to some wacko degree, premeditated. It should have taught us this: if you're going to whack somebody on campus, having instant access to your weapon of choice is not really that big an obstacle. Most people aren't gonna choose their paint-ball gun. Specifically defining weapons won't change intent. Pointless.
Further, the ban isn't a ban on weapons; it's a ban on seeing them. From the AP article:
Students or university employees who are preparing for a hunting trip
may store a weapon in their vehicle, but only if it's unloaded and kept
out of sight.
I have some killer seat covers, lovingly hand-crafted by the most beautiful woman I know. I guarantee you that I can store my entire arsenal in my truck, and no one would ever know that those weapons are there. And if the weapons are out of sight, how in the hell can the questions surrounding lock'n'load ever arise? They can't. They won't. I know at least two individuals on campus who have conceal-carry permits. Even though, a C&C permit doesn't allow you to carry on campus, they are concealed ... that first pesky little C. Just exactly how is one supposed to know the danger if a weapon is hidden? They won't. The provisions of concealment: Pointless.
So, I'm hoping by now that you're asking the right question. What is the point of the newly proposed Firearm and Weapons policies at Montana State University? Money. The University is a business, and it has a product to sell. That product should, in the minds of most, just be education. But now, thanks to events in far distant lands, they have to try and sell security as well. The fear-laden security Moms want Junior to be safe ... or at least those marketing the MSU brand would like to think so. So, they've generated pointlessness in order to sell safety, as well as an edumacation. Again to the article:
Time was when it was common to see rifles in racks on the rear windows
of pickups -- and who knew if they were loaded? But times have changed.
The horrific shootings at Virginia Tech -- the worst in the nation's
history -- reminded us of what's possible in an era in which violence
has become all too commonplace.
Not at MSU it hasn't. And if it was so damned commonplace, why did it have such a huge impact on the national consciousness? It isn't commonplace. It was random, just as almost every other bit of "random violence" tends to be. It is a possibility, not a certain effect of the availability of "nunchucks". Violent minded people will commit violence. It's the talent, not the tools, kids. Do something about that, if you can. But, efforts to cage that particular beast remain mostly ... pointless.