Discussion List for campus-based and allied personnel working to end gender-based violence on campus.

["Don Lazzarini" <>]

Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 23:20:42 -0400
From: "Ben Atherton-Zeman - Feminist,   Actor and Husband"

> In the nicest way I know how I am asking Mr. Sokolow to focus his 
> attention on educating himself on the real issue.
>
> Don Lazzarini M. Ed
> Coordinator VAWOC Project
> Resource Specialist
> 208-885-2956
> 
>
Don, if that's the *nicest* way you know how, I'd hate to see you when
you're being mean!



Dear Ben Atherton-Zeman-Feminist, Actor and Husband;


Would my response make better sense if placed in a context that our
basis of knowledge can mean the difference between life and death for
students in our universities? If a national transportation expert wrote
an op-ed piece claiming to "wear your seatbelt" or "place your child in
a properly secured car seat" was preposterous, wouldn't somebody out
there question their premise and basis for removing these options from
consideration? In fact, go back to media coverage of national seat belt
laws and you will find many arguments against them replete with drowning
or burning to death and can't get out fears. Would such an "expert"
opinion cause you to fear for extensive loss of life resulting from his
uninformed position? Would you not request his credentials and research?
What happens when he responds to your concerns without addressing either
his credentials or research, but reveals he doesn't know anymore about
seatbelts than the students he serves? 

When we begin a discussion after 32 students are killed should we
arbitrarily remove viable options from the table? If you were to
seriously consider what I wrote you will find that the information
conveyed to the list serve is neither pettily selfish or malicious
(definition of mean). I went to great lengths to provide accurate
background and supporting information to encourage the reader to
question what they read and to further educate themselves. As the stakes
go up in life or death situations the niceties are the first to be
removed from the table. There is a wealth of information in my post that
others can benefit from. This is an adult conversation that others may
find difficult or uncomfortable to engage in. What I am disappointed in
is neither you or Mr. Sokolow went into the research or the very serious
concerns I raised. I wrote a personal response back to Mr. Sokolow
sharing my disappointment in the defensiveness of the response he
penned. If some persist in seeing this as an opportunity to swap
opinions, a solution will be slow in coming.  Is that mean or are hard
questions in the face of homicidal attacks necessary for the survival of
our students?

I was one of those people in uniform who responded to man's inhumanity
to man for over 18 years. I carried a pistol on a daily basis as a
police officer, primarily to defend myself and to allow for the
enforcement of legal statutes. As a law enforcement officer there is no
responsibility to keep individual people safe, nor a means of suing
officers who fail to provide such individual protection. I was a member
of a SWAT team, a tactical riot squad, crimes against person's (rape,
robbery, homicide) detective and police department FBI trained
firearms/instructor/range master for many of those years. I attended
special schools on those and many other topics exceeding 1000 hours of
law enforcement specific training. Additionally, I was a California
Peace Officer's Standards and Training (POST) certified firearms
instructor for one of California's many basic police academies where new
officers (many 21 years old) get the required mandatory training to
serve and protect our campuses. I taught law enforcement officers and
military personnel from around the nation shooting techniques at the
California Specialized Training Institute's Officer Survival School. 

My resume, background, training and experience encouraged me to look
deeply into the research and international impacts of concealed handgun
carry on crime occurring in so called "gun-free zones". The peer
reviewed research and real world experiments of concealed carry
resulting in reduced criminal acts is available for everyone who is
willing to seek it out. As well as data, showing how national
disarmament of a civilian population has increased the risk to that
population (Australia and Great Britain are interesting examples). I
caution you the data is extensive in support of concealed carry. The
methodology behind those figures that indicate you are 74 times more
likely to be injured or killed if you have a gun have been peer reviewed
and shown to incorporate fatally flawed methodology. That doesn't stop
unethical people from continuing to use them.

Having trained a great number of new and experienced law enforcement
officers about use of force and qualification with their firearms I am
not surprised when citizens want to place their "protectors" on a
pedestal. At the same time there is a trend in academia to view students
as immature and irresponsible when it comes to choices they make. Look
at the age of our soldiers fighting for us in Iraq and tell me is
immature and irresponsible an accurate description of them? Many new
officers attending police academies don't have prior shooting experience
and are under 21 years of age (immature and irresponsible?). When they
are finished their firearms training range time is calculated in mere
hours and the rounds fired usually less than 2000. Many experienced
officers may have little or no interest in shooting their handguns and
qualify once or twice a year on basic courses. Some officers don't
qualify and have to go through remediation training. Some officers who
graduate the firearms portion of the training, are very questionable at
best in both their judgment and accuracy. Some officers work out
regularly and have the physical conditioning to handle the stress and
rigor of running up stairs and across campuses to engage suspects, some
don't. 

I share this information because a student who has a concealed weapons
permit (again for those who missed it 21 years of age required) may have
more knowledge, skill and ability to defend themselves with it than a
21-24 year old police officer who has graduated from a police academy
(these ages are listed because they correspond to the majority of
student ages in a traditional campus). Until we as citizens understand
the actual capability of those officers who are paid to protect us, we
are in a poor position to weigh the risks or voice opinions about who we
should rely on during homicidal attacks. Based on his response is Mr.
Sokolow's lack of knowledge about what training it takes to be
proficient enough with a handgun or prejudice against firearms a good
beginning point for problem solving or policy advising? These are not
theories to be tossed about, these are policy choices that may result in
saving lives or not.

In a world of national experts and performers I am nobody. However, as a
consumer of risk management strategies I am concerned when "experts"
give their opinion on issues outside of their area of expertise. It must
be very flattering being asked by many people to voice an opinion on
subjects of national interest. There is nothing regular people like
better than to be asked to voice their opinion on a subject. A person
positioned and advertised as Mr. Sokolow is to a national audience of
administrators has great power to influence and therefore has a greater
responsibility to all of us to clearly state when he is moving outside
his "expert opinion" into his "right to voice an opinion". I am not
surprised when experts do this, but it is not ethical for me to engage
in by-stander behavior and remain quiet when such opinions are likely to
increase risk to students. Mr. "Ben Atherton-Zeman - Feminist, Actor,
Husband" I understand how a person in your position is concerned about
being nice. On the other hand with all due respect you are not the
person I would choose to respond to or plan for how society should
tactically respond to a man with a gun call, multiple shots fired,
multiple victims and confirmed DOA's. I would utilize persons well
versed in the material, resources and tactics.


I come from a dangerous career world where direct accurate information
kept me and many other people alive. In my professional and expert
opinion exploring concealed carry on college campuses is not a
"preposterous suggestion". We have national resources that should be
encouraged to create training and research facilities (much as special
forces and FBI response teams do) to determine the optimum training,
skills and tactics a concealed carry civilian might need to successfully
counter an armed attack in classrooms. We may find these civilians
(already legally armed through concealed weapons permits) could become
valuable resources against these homicidal and future terrorist attacks
with minimal effort and expense. Since persons under attack tend to lay
down or move away from the homicidal shooter, they usually won't be
surrounded by innocent targets. Is there harm in exploring these
options? Are there models in Israel's response to terrorist attacks
against schools that we may study? If terrorists are willing to plan an
attack on a US army base, I guarantee they could wipe out your average
university police department day shift if they felt that would further
their cause in addition to killing students. We are truly in a time
where holding on to old fear based paradigms is risky business.



Don Lazzarini M. Ed
Coordinator VAWOC Project
Resource Specialist
208-885-2956