Two senior roommates attending Gonzaga University, Erik Fagan and Daniel McIntosh, were confronted by a man aggressively demanding money at the door of their apartment which is owned by the university. They subsequently pulled a 10-mm Glock handgun to deter the man, succeeding in chasing him away. Following the incident, college security confiscated both the brandished weapon owned by McIntosh and an additional shotgun owned by Fagan.
This has since sparked something of a controversy. As with most universities, Gonzaga maintains a strict no-gun policy for students either living on campus or in college housing. Therefore, both students face suspension and expulsion--the latter of which is permanent and affects their educations. Some people defend the students' right to protect themselves and their property. Gonzaga's president has stated that the event will lead to "evaluation" of their weapon policy and the prospects of safety and home invasion.
First, you have the self-defense aspect of it. Obviously, the campus is lax on security if this invader (which full articles say is a six-time felon) was able to get to campus housing to attempt a break-in. If security is lax, then students don't feel safe. Could campus security have even made it to the apartment fast enough to assist, if one of the students ran to the next room and called them?
Second, I'm sure the students knew of the no-guns policy within campus housing and chose to take their chances with firearms. I'd be curious to know what the policy is on retracting knives, brass knuckles, mace, or any other melee defense items. Since anything can be used as a weapon, it seems discriminatory against "scary" weapons when nothing is perceived wrong with kitchen knives, baseball bats, and claw hammers, but the students didn't use those, so they did break campus policy.
Third, since this college is government funded, then one could bring forth the argument of violation of the second amendment right to "keep and carry arms". A private college can do what it wants with rules, but a public one should face scrutiny where students are renting property.
Fourth, the knee-jerk reaction and punishment by the college is a terrible public relations move. This story is getting so much press because the move effectively says that they want their students defenseless to potential armed robbers. I realize that the president of the college is planning on evaluating their weapon policy, but it would seem like that should happen concurrent to a probationary period for the two students. The college should also take into account that the students successfully fended off an invader without firing a single shot. That demonstrates restraint.
There are a lot of unknowns in the reporting of the incident. The man was no doubt trespassing, but it may be that the school's apartment housing is separate from the campus. Most colleges require no identification or permit to drive through. This could explain the lack of security, although it shouldn't. From what I gather, Gonzaga as a private university does not have its own police department, and so would be reliant on (possibly rented) campus security. Spokane Police who have local authority were not mentioned at all, therefore we can assume security took the matter into their own hands. It could also be that a neighbour phoned 911, which redirected the query to security. Emergency systems can vary. Type of apartment building may also be a factor. If lobby and interior hallways, smaller chance of single intruder getting in. If individual units leading directly to outside, far easier to break in. Still unclear whether the man was armed, and whether the two students opened the door initially. My guess is that he may have banged on the door to check if anyone was home with intent to burglarize, and when someone came, tried to save face by making demands. The only charges he might have faced if caught--trespassing, solicitation of money, public disturbance.
This particular university is government-funded, but in theory is not subject to government management. Accepted right to bear arms should not be dependent on a school's classification. Washington gun laws are pretty lax. Lack of involvement is consistent with local regulation. In the act of self defense, pointing a firearm is not a crime, not even a misdemeanor. Their laws do not require retreat from a perceived threat. Firing the weapon would certainly require police investigation, with possible ends of reckless endangerment considering apartment units' proximity and thin walls.
Whatever the case and whoever called security, I wonder is it ethical to neglect mentioning a gun in recounting the incident?
Many institutions prohibit weapons on the basis of law and the definition "items designed to inflict harm"; this university is not an exception. It appears clear at first. For example, you can keep baseball bats or cutlery, but you cannot keep brass knuckles or batons. Incapacitating weapons not intended to be lethal like mace, pepper spray, tasers, and stun guns are where the lines get blurry. Knives vary so much in function, therefore the school limits any blade to be no greater than 3 inches in length. Other dangerous items like fireworks are not allowed, while it remains unreasonable to ban things like lighters.
All schools are subject to the federal gun-free zones. However, providing the state and local laws permit it, documented concealed carry is legal in those zones. In this situation, only campus security arrived, whom I assume possess no firearms. Nonexistent armed campus police is explained by Gonzaga being a private university, yet I cannot explain why Spokane officers did not show up.
By Limxzero (5329)
By HullBreach (867)
By M.J kInG (1331)
