College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students

Viewpoint: The 'crime of passion' factor

By Jillian Sheridan for the editorial board

Print this article

Published: Thursday, April 30, 2009

Updated: Thursday, April 30, 2009

On Saturday, George Zinkhan, a marketing professor at the University of Georgia, got into an argument during his wife’s theater group picnic, left in a rage and came back with two guns. While his children waited in the car, he shot and killed his wife and two others.

An esteemed professor at UGA’s Terry College of Business, Zinkhan has no record of convictions or previous disciplinary problems. His colleagues, shocked by Saturday’s events, have described Zinkhan as a well-respected scholar. In reaction to the triple homicide, Bob Covington, a neighbor of Zinkhan’s, told the Atlanta Journal Constitution,

“You would never expect anything like that. There was never any sign to expect anything like that. I never even heard him raise his voice. We’re clearly shocked by the event.”

UGA Professor Michael Hyman told the Associated Press that, if given “a list of 100 people who might crack in this way,” he would have put Zinkhan “at the bottom of that list.”

This incident sadly and disturbingly illustrates a scenario not often addressed by the pro-gun lobby: the crime of passion. It is unclear whether or not Zinkhan had a concealed carry license, but it seems unlikely that a college professor with no history of violence or mental illness would have been denied one. And yet, his possession of weapons lead to three deaths in a matter of minutes on a quiet Saturday afternoon.

Not including Zinkhan’s crime, at least five people have been killed by verifiable concealed handgun license holders in crimes of passion in 2009. On Feb. 6, Robert Schwerin of Tenessee made the mistake of arguing over a parking spot with someone who, unbeknownst to him, was legally armed. Harry Raymond Coleman felt that Scherwin was parked too close to his Hummer in the parking lot of an Italian restaurant.

Their argument ended when Coleman shot Scherwin in the chest.

On Feb. 14, Frank Garcia, a concealed carry license holder, shot three people, killing two, in the parking lot of a hospital in Brockport, New York. He was angry because the hospital fired him. He later shot a married couple execution-style inside their home.

In October of 2008, Robert Stahl took his daughter to a Halloween party. A child at the party asked about Stahl’s gun. Since he thought he had unloaded the gun, Stahl took it out of his holster. In doing so he shot his daughter’s ten year old friend in the stomach.

Another license holder, James Patrick Wonder, was involved in a road rage incident on Aug. 5, 2008. He and Donald Pettit, another driver, pulled into a parking lot, where Wonder shot Pettit in the head in front of Pettit’s twelve-year-old daughter.

In 2008 and the beginning of 2009, concealed carry licensees have committed more than 60 documented offenses. Most of them involve assaulting citizens while license holders are under the influence of drugs or alcohol or in a state of rage. They included assaults at sporting events, school campuses and grocery stores.

Incidents such as these lead us to wonder if any of our well-respected faculty or fellow students could harbor equally sinister undercurrents, or be inclined to use their weapon in the heat of a moment. After all, Zinkhan had shown no signs of dangerous behavior.

His fatal rage highlights the difficulty in determining who is, and who is not, qualified to wield deadly force.

A key argument made by pro-gun groups on campus has been that ordinary citizens with guns could stop a Virginia Tech-like shooting on campus. There are quite a few problems with this unsubstantiated argument. The Brady Campaign reports that even police officers hit their targets less than 20 percent of the time. The Zinkhan tragedy proves that it is more likely that a seemingly refulgent concealed carrier will use his or her weapon for evil or handle it recklessly.

Even if concealed carry on campus could thwart large, premeditated shootings, the ubiquity of guns on campus would most likely increase the number of crimes of passion, accidental shootings and suicides. Will guns in the hands of citizens help when an otherwise normal professor or student gets angry? What about when a drunk freshman walks into his dorm room to find that his otherwise responsible roommate left his gun unguarded? What about when a student struggling with depression has a weak moment and knows that there is a gun under her roommate’s bed?

Premeditated murders are not the only gun deaths the Legislature must consider. In fact, those kinds of crimes may be the ones representatives have the least control over. Drugs, alcohol use, suicide and mental health issues all peak for people ages 18 to 24. There are countless people struggling with mental health and alcohol dependence living in UT dorms, many undiagnosed. If the Legislature makes guns readily available to them, a weak moment could lead to irrevocable tragedy.

Comments

44 comments
Snark
Wed May 6 2009 10:09
Matt, there are 11 universities that either do not (or legally cannot) prohibit legally concealed weapons on campus. Colorado leaves the decision up to individual institutions, and Colorado State has allowed students to carry legally concealed weapons. West Virginia has one school in a similar situation. Finally, Utah law prohibits their nine public universities from refusing to allow legally concealed weapons on campus. You seem to be more interested in the existence of such institutions than in the details, so I'll let you verify that there haven't been any incidents involving legally possessed weapons on these campuses.

I did have a look at the Minnesota data. From 2005-2007, there were three murders committed by the 56,000 people in MN with permits. There were 356 murders committed by the 5.2 million people in MN overall in the same period, giving the general population a per capita murder rate 1.3 times that of the population with permits. How about assault? There were 29 for permit holders and 25,310 for the general population, giving the general population a per capita assault rate 9.4 times that of the permit holders. The MN data, frankly, bludgeons your argument with a hockey stick like a member of the Minnesota general population might bludgeon you.

You then make unsupported assertions about Florida and "shall issue" states that are about as reliable as your assumed identity. If you actually are retired, I'd suggest you report to the nearest community college for education in logic, statistics, and literacy.

Matt
Tue May 5 2009 23:58
Snark, could it be you're a fabrication of your own imagination? I know where Texas is, and I know their DPS statistics have been used for argument on my side of the issue. So?

How about some names of these univerities.

Why don't you check out the Minnesota stats, or maybe you wouldn't like what you see?

How about Florida, where crime is off the charts in spite of (or because of?) concealed carry?

Almost all the "shall issue" states have higher crime rates than the "may issue" states.

Even though I'm retired, I don't have time for anymore of this. You get the last word - give it your best shot.

Snark
Tue May 5 2009 19:31
Matt, there's nothing personal about it. You're fabricating a persona because you think it will assist you in convincing people not familiar with this particular argumentative fallacy, and substitute that persona for actual argument against campus concealed carry. If you were interested in true debate, you might address the data from the dozen universities that allow concealed carry, or for local flavor, to the Texas DPS statistics on CHL holders. You're not interested in ideas, you're interested in yourself.
Matt
Tue May 5 2009 19:12
Jackie, we were discussing these issues until things got personal. Freedom4All said it eloquently, and I gave some Minnesota stats on permit-to-carry (seeMay 1st, 16:44). Snark seems to have a short memory on that.

As far as carry on campus, Ms. Sheridan's editorial said it well, especially when it comes to alchohol, drugs, and mental health problems among college age people. An interesting statistic, if one could find it, would be the odds of any one student being shot at a college campus, considering the thousands of campuses in this country. And for that some want to open up colleges to concealed carry?

In any event, debating these issues is a pointless waste if time. I know from experience nobody's thinking changes.

Jackie
Tue May 5 2009 18:21
Not one of these examples has anything to do with concealed carry or a college campus. Very poor writing.
Snark
Tue May 5 2009 15:18
Matt, I'm calling you a liar because it's the simplest explanation. You've resorted entirely to arguments from authority -- I have a shotgun! I'm a veteran! -- and have thus ceded any of the arguments based on ideas. Why should anyone here believe an anonymous "Matt" when he only uses his purported identity in this way?

Are you interested in ideas, or in telling people you are better qualified to pontificate than they are?

Snark
Tue May 5 2009 15:17
Matt, I'm calling you a liar because it's the simplest explanation. You've resorted entirely to arguments from authority (I have a shotgun! I'm a veteran!) and have thus ceded any of the arguments based on ideas. Why should anyone here believe an anonymous "Matt" when he only uses (his?) purported identity in this way?

Are you interested in ideas, or in telling people you are better qualified to pontificate than they are?

Matt
Mon May 4 2009 23:56
Your true colors are showing, Snark. And I've seen it before with others. When there's no argument left, some people resort to name calling. The discussion ends when all you can do is call me a liar. I think it's reasonable to apply what you know about me to everything else you say.

Don't shoot yourself in the other foot.

Snark
Mon May 4 2009 23:18
Alex, the fact that CHL identities are kept private doesn't mean crime data on CHL holders isn't aggregated. That's why, as many people have stated before, you can go to the Texas DPS website and see how many crimes they've committed. This evidence, unfortunately, will not stop you from promulgating bizarre conspiracy theories about one of the least felonious segments of society.
Snark
Mon May 4 2009 23:15
Matt, you think I took you seriously? Not at all. You're a computer mouse flail jockey, not a war veteran.
Alex
Mon May 4 2009 16:50
If you really believe college campuses are so dangerous that you must be armed to be safe, then you are a fool to go there, armed or not.
There is a law here in Texas than "protects" the identities of CHL holders which means that crimes commited by them probably don't get reported as often as they occur because the information is hard to get.
Matt
Mon May 4 2009 14:42
Hey, Snark. Can't believe you took me seriously. But this you can: military service during the Korean War, and 30+ years in law enforcement. 'Nuff said?

Have a nice day.

Snark
Sun May 3 2009 00:42
Does anyone reading this believe someone wary of the omnipresent NRA bogeyman has actually operated a gun, much less owned one? That said, Matt, you do have alternatives. I hear a mouse dangled by its USB cable makes a hell of an improvised flail. Zombie Charlton Heston won't stand a chance!
Matt
Sat May 2 2009 19:05
No problem, Snark. My old shotgun can handle that just fine. Thanks, anyway, for the heads up.
Snark
Sat May 2 2009 16:39
Be sure to leave your lights on tonight, Matt -- that NRA bogeyman is just around the corner with an "assault weapon" and coming for you...
Matt
Sat May 2 2009 13:54
What the NRA decides is what the NRA gets. If you don't believe, ask any legislator. Why else did the assault weapons ban expire - in spite of protests by law enforcement, prosecutors, and the great majority of the public.
Snark
Fri May 1 2009 22:30
This notion that the NRA can "ban" information about CHL holders is silly. Information about CHL holders is often collected and displayed in aggregate (see the Texas DPS website) and the identities of individual CHL holders are either available publicly (see the controversy in Tennessee on that point) or made private by state legislatures. In both cases, the NRA doesn't make the decision.

Of course, one would expect such a notion from someone who then refers us to the Brady Campaign...

Jeremy
Fri May 1 2009 18:06
Fantastic article. And this has nothing to do with politics, Gib W. For crying out loud, see the issue as something that affects people, not politics (not to mention this is an editorial). I'm getting sick of conservatives and liberals thinking everything turns into a political pissing contest.
David
Fri May 1 2009 17:37
By federal law, police officers are not responsible for protecting anyone's life. CHL on campus is about protecting the self when the police can't get there.
Molly
Fri May 1 2009 17:35
I believe that The Daily Texan should be held responsible for the statistics reported. They are supposed to be a responsible news source.






log out