The Case For Guns At Capitol Campus
For months your paper has
been looking for a controversial
issue to cover. By chance the
issue of arming the campus
security officers arose. You
immediately took the opposite
side of the issue. This is good
when done responsibly. How
ever, it is quite evident that the
CC Reader has deliberately
distorted the facts for the sake
of attracting readership
through controversy. This is
poor journalism. Opinions
should be confined to the
editorial page. We have felt the
need to clear up this issue.
Mr. Perrone and Mr.
Adams, you wanted the facts
and figures. Here they are, in
print, for you and everyone to
read.
Your poll's figures are
correct for the 5.5 percent of
the campus population you
canvased. The sampling meth
ods you employed are ques
tionable.
Witnesses of your sampling
techniques indicated that your
sample was uncontrolled. Fur
thermore, the facts of your poll
were distorted. WE ARE NOT
ARMING THE STUDENT
PATROL!
In at least one case,
witnessed by four people, your
pollster indicated that the
Student Government Associa
tion suggested arming the
student patrol.
When the results of your
poll were published, no
indication was made as to what
organization conducted the poll.
Only the last paragraph hinted
that the poll was not handled by
S.G.A..
On the other hand, the
S.G.A. poll surveyed those
students who must live with
this issue twenty-four hours a
day: the resident population.
From a total of 784
residents, single and married,
up to now, our poll surveyed
486 people, which is 63 percent
of the population. Furthermore,
our survey was controlled. All
campus residents are being
polled and signatures are being
taken to insure each resident
votes once.
In reference to the "Scare
Potential" of the survey form.
There have been three bur
glaries within a thirty day
period on campus. The total
value of the property stolen
was $1,500, not $2,500 as stated
in the CC Reader.
Local crime figures have
also shown recent increases.
(See Below]
The term para-professional
is not an ambiguous.term. The
Point Of View The Case Against Guns At Capitol Campus
By Ed Perrone
I'm pissed off. For three
weeks, members of the Reader
editorial staff have been asking
that the S.G.A. quit jerking off
and come out with the facts
surrounding the issue of arming
the Campus Police. It's time to
stop the shouting and get down
to the pigy-gritty: are guns
necessary, and do the students
want them?
Well, the S.G.A. answered,
all right. Nine typed paps - of
more rhetoric. Of accusations of
irresponsibility and distortion.
person or persons unknown
who burglarized Meade
Heights, exhibited enough
expertise to know what to take
to maximize profits and
minimize risk. However, their
methods of entry did not show
the same expertise. The
statement on the S.G.A. survey
form would have been false had
it read "amateur" or "profes
sional". Hence the term
pars-professional.
Relative to the statement
"most probably armed", con
sider this statement:
"The criminal element rec
ognizes a uniformed/blazered
policeman as a threat to his
ability to pursue his activity.
The law breaker will respond to
the...policeman without regard
to whether or not the policeman
is armed - it will be assumed
that - he IS armed."
Why did the Student
Government Association re
quest that the survey be kept
out of the paper? Not because
we wanted to get a jump on our
opposition, as Mr. Perrone said.
Mr. Perrone was in attendance
at the February 2 S.G.A.
meeting when the reason was
discussed.
To set the facts straight,
members of S.G.A. requested
that the story not be printed
because doing so would
advertise the fact that our
campus police officers are
presently unarmed and have no
access to a weapon.
Some of the arguments
against arming our campus
police officers have been
"giving them guns makes the
campus look like an armed
camp," "Having guns is
,provocative, money is better
spent on the curriculum, and
armed officers are inconsistent
with the ideal university,
environment," and "it is
dangerous to permit armed
men and women to roam the
campus."
Other arguments involved a
variety of compromises such as
arming officers at night, only if
they are in the patrol car, and
disarming the officers in
proximity of a disturbance.
"The extension of the
'armed camp' argument holds
that police officers are likely to
be more conservative and
reactionary than the average
citizen, and thus are more likely
to respond to a situation with
force. While it is true that the
police officers hold a special
position of authority vis-a-vis
other members of the commun
ity, the other assumptions are
not true..."
And a long, unacknowledged
excerpt of a magazine article,
almost totally irrelevant to the
present situation.
Okay, John and Ray and
Carol and Kitty. Try these on
for size:
For months we have been
looking for a controversial issue
to cover. True. We are a
newspaper, not a press-release
sheet. If anyone should know,
John, you should, that the issue
of guns is , news, and news
deserves coverage. If it's
controversial, it's controver
In another view of the
"armed Camp" theory, Chief
Teegarten of Colorado State
University relates this story.
"Up to the mid 1960'5,
Colorado State University
Police only appeared armed at
night. One day, out of the blue,
he instructed his personnel to
continue wearing their weap
ons during the day. After
several weeks he had not
received any reaction whatso.
ever from any members of the
academic community other
than comments he himself
solicited by pointing out the
change."
"The London, England,
Police are not armed. They may
truly be thought to function in
an atmosphere other than an
'armed camp'. Few observers
would try to assert that our
criminal element would disarm
because the police force in a
area of their operation (the
campus) was unarmed.
For example: "The security
operation of the University of
Northern Colorado performs a
pare-police function on that
campus in an unarmed state.
One glance at their catalogue of
dangerous incidents for the
period dating 1970 to 1975
shows over fifty cases with
✓deadly weapons involved. Thus
it is obvious that unarmed
police inspire no sense of fair
play whatsoever in the poten
tial law breaker. If anything,
common sense suggests that
such a situation may even
encourage the criminal to enter
the campus with virtual
impunity."
"In situations of jeopardy
where lethal force is necessita
ted, chemical agents do not
possess instant cessation pir
tential. In less lethal confronta
tions, they do not offer . . the
positive defense capabilities
provided by impact weapons...
When a firearm is needed,
chemicals are of no value. When
impact weapons must be
employed, aerosol units offer an
unacceptable alternative. Un
der all other circumstances,
professional humane and effec
tive defensive tactics are
preferable."
"Thus the 'armed Camp'
argument may be shown to be
completely irrelevant to the
issue at hand. The proliferation
and easy availability of
weapons and ammunition in our
society render the phrase
perhaps more descriptive of
society as a whole. The
institution of higher education
is part of that society; and if it's
citizens and law breakers are
sial; so be it. We didn't start it.
But it is our duty to inform the
students of this school what is
going on. We didn't create the
controversy, we just reported
it. Then, as individuals, some of
us became involved by writing
editorials expressing our opin
ions; namely Tim Adams and
me. Our editorials always
appeared on page two, entitled,
if you'll notice, "Perspectives
Page". I defy any of you to cite
one instance of a distortion of
facts in either of the two news
stories we carried on page one.
armed with increasing fre
quency, then the situation too
reflects the society as a whole."
"Clearly, crime is a part of
Campus life, just as it is a part,
albeit unwelcome, of the life of
American Society. Clear, too, is
the inescapable fact that the
persons committing these
crimes are frequently arming
themselves with weapons and
bringing them onto the campus.
Finally, it is also obvious that
our campus law enforcement
agencies are viewing, confis
cating and/or otherwise en
countering these weapons in
the course of their duties."
"There has not yet been
developed a reliable method for
the police officer to pre-deter
mine whether or not a weapon
will be encountered in a given
situation. To quote from the
introduction of the so-called
Dangerous Incident Catalogue
from the University of North
Colorado files 1971 - 1975:1t is
impossible to know the
seriousness of any situation
until you are actually involved,
in it. There are few incidents
which can be predefined as
dangerous or non-dangerous."'
An interpretation - of the
crime figures for Capitol
Campus [Below] show that
during a six month period, from
June 1, 1976 to December 31,
1976, the campus averaged
59.33 complaints per month. In
the one month period of
January, 1977, the campus
averaged 161 complaints, an
increase of 101.67 complaints or
an increase of 272.01 percent.
During the same six month
period, the campus averaged
2.5 thefts per month. This year,
the campus averaged 4.0 thefts
per month, an increase of 160
percent.
MONTH OF JANUARY 1977
COMMUNITY POP• COMPLAINTS
Hlghspire 3,000 202
Lower Swatera 7,000 333
Middletown 10,000 191
Capitol Campus 784 181
TYPES OF CRIMES
BURGLARY ASSAULT
Highspire
1
Lower Swatara
1
Middletown
1
Capitol Campus
2
VANDALISM DISORDERLY INDECENT
CONDUCT ASSAULT
Highspire
2
Lower Swatara
4
Middletown
3
Capitol Campus
0
They are the facts, people, as
we saw them happen, or as they
were reported to us. Sure we
get emotional, sure we get
biased, but our opinions
remain, under specific bylines,
on our editorial page. And we
each take full responsibility for
what we say.
ru show you where the
distortions lie.
You claim that we have
sampled 5.5 percent of the
campus population, while you
have surveyed 68 percent of the
residents. How can you
Capitol Campus Crime
figures for the Six Month
Period of June 1, 1976 to
December 31, 1976.
COMPLAINTS ASSAULTS
FOR JANUARY 1977
161
BURGLARIES ATTEMPTED
BURGLARIES
OTHER THEFTS
CRIMES
For 8 Months 15
For Jan. 77 4
The figures show an
incredible difference in the
crime rates of the three
communities and Capitol
Campus.
A letter was drafted to
Dauphin County District
Attorney Leroy Zimmerman
following a meeting with him.
He responded with a letter
printed in full below.
"This is in response to our
discussion in this office on
February 9th, and your letter
dated February 10th.
The carrying of firearms by
law enforcement personnel is
a serious responsibility. The
legislature recognized the
importance of the responsibility
when it enacted into law certain
minimum training standards
for all municipal police agen
cies. Part of the training and
certification involves the use of
firearms. So long as a sworn
police officer, duly constituted
under the law, receives the
essential training in the use of
firearms, that particular indi
vidual is permitted to carry a
sidearm in carrying out his
duties.
Obviously I support the
need for sworn police officers to
carry firearms and have always
done so in the past.
Whether or not employees
of Penn State University, who
serve as Capitol Campus Police
officers, can carry firearms is
solely and exclusively an issue
for the 'officials of Penn State
University, since it is my
understanding that the current
policy prohibiting the carrying
of firearms is a university
directive.
"It has always been my
position that police officials
should not be hampered or
curtailed in any manner in
carrying out the lawful
objectives assigned to them by
their sworn duties."
Copies of this letter and
reference material used for this
article may be examined upon
request.
John Leierzapf, Ray Martin,
Carol Uhlig, Kitty Nestor
compare these two numbers?
They are percentages of two
completely different groups.
Yet, by your placing them
together, you make it seem as if
your survey were almost
twelve times larger than ours.
This is not the case. We
surveyed 163 people; you
surveyed 486. Your survey is
only 3 times larger than ours.
Don't distort the facts.
The facts of our poll were
not distorted. It was made
clear in my article on page one,
February 10, 1977, that the
S.. Peas 4
SEX
OFFENSES