There is one thing that makes me even more uncomfortable than the thought of being surrounded by lots of strangers with concealed weapons beneath their coats. It is the thought of being surrounded by any strangers with concealed weapons beneath their coats and paranoid ideas floating around their brains. Pistols and paranoia are a scary mix indeed.

According to the non-psychiatric vernacular, paranoia is “a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others.” As such, there is now and has been in previous years the rather unrealistic fear on the part of many gun advocates that some autocrat holding the keys to the White House will decide to round up all of their guns.

After today, the Republican hopefuls for the Presidency will leave the Granite State, some disappointed by their showing in the New Hampshire primary while others energized as they move on to the next preliminary. Over the past week or more, political operatives have been busy arranging TV spots and campaign stops for their candidates, endeavoring to win over the surprisingly sizable pool of undecided voters.

Selections of media-targeted photo opportunities tend to say a lot about a candidate. And in Saturday's Boston Globe, two of the contenders were unabashedly playing up to gun-loving conservative voters in New Hampshire and elsewhere. FULL ENTRY

Like most people, I struggle every year to come up with creative gift ideas for all the family members and close friends on my holiday shopping list. Well, this season, the task was easy. With an eye toward the practical, I’m buying them all bullet-proof vests.

Why should I be so motivated this year when crime rates, including that of murder, are relatively low? My worry is two-fold: the growing momentum of concealed-carry legislation in many jurisdictions combined with Congressional action that would establish reciprocity among the states in the right to carry loaded firearms.

As a criminologist, I was drawn to the interactive map of this year's Boston homicides that was featured in boston.com earlier this month. The concentration of murders in the city’s poorest neighborhoods of Roxbury, Dorchester and Mattapan is obvious yet hardly surprising. These areas of the city have long been “hot spots” for violence.

To me, the far more intriguing pattern to this year’s homicides lies in weapon use, identified in the list of cases just below the boston.com map. The overwhelming majority of murders -- just over 85% -- was by firearm. And, unlike the stable geographic pattern, the weapon distribution in Boston homicides has shifted over the past few decades. As shown in the figure below, the percentage of Boston homicides that involves a gun is now at a record high. And the costs to families and society, in general, are staggering.

The Virginia Tech campus police acted responsibly when it launched this campus-wide alert after receiving a phone tip from three teenagers attending a summer program:

"Person with a gun reported near Dietrick. Stay inside. Secure doors. Emergency personnel responding. Call 911 for help."

Even though the three young witnesses to a man carrying what seemed to be a handgun covered by some type of cloth may have been mistaken, it was wise for campus authorities to err on the side of caution. Moreover, the University had been criticized and recently fined -- unfairly so -- for failing to respond sufficiently to the double homicide on the early morning of April 16, 2007, that turned out to be but the first wave of far a far worse rampage to come later that morning.

With a mandate from the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, colleges are encouraged act promptly in the face of a credible threat to the safety and well-being of its students or employees. Of course, credibility is the in eyes of the beholder, but better safe than sorry. After several hours of follow-up investigation with no confirmation of danger, the campus police lifted the warning. Of course, by then classes had been cancelled and folks had gone home.

When a student at the MassBay Community College was arrested last winter for having a loaded semiautomatic weapon inside his backpack, we were all relieved that no one was harmed. But as more details surfaced indicating that the student had had a substantial criminal record, the relief turned to outrage. How could such a dangerous individual be admitted as a student?

As a long-time and consistent opponent of allowing guns on college campuses (with the exception of those issued to duly-sworn campus police), you might think I too would be outraged. You might think I'd join the vocal crowd, including Globe columnist Derrick Jackson and those at the Globe's Editorial Board, to insist that community colleges, like their four-year counterparts, probe applicants concerning their criminal pasts. Well, think again.

The Arizona legislature passed a measure yesterday hat would force colleges and universities in the state to allow properly-licensed students and staff to carry firearms -- concealed or in open view -- while walking or driving through campus. If signed by Governor Janice Brewer, a supporter of gun-owner rights, Arizona will join Utah in redefining the notion of marksmanship on campus. It is no longer just about grades.

As compromise to opponents in the state senate, the Arizona bill was strategically narrowed from an earlier version that would also have permitted concealed firearms in dorms, classrooms and other campus buildings. Meanwhile, lawmakers in the similarly gun-lovin' state of Texas are continuing to deliberate on such a broad proposal.

The shifting tide in at least one corner of America is a victory for Students for Concealed Carry, a national organization formed after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. But many faculty see it as as the makings of a hostile workplace. How comfortable would instructors be in handing out poor grades to students who may be packing heat? No wonder that the faculties at all three state universities in Arizona overwhelmingly voiced opposition to the guns-on-campus bill. Apparently, their voice of reason and concern was trumped by those calling for unrestricted gun rights.

Who can blame Carmen Guzman for trying to place blame at the doorstep of a New Hampshire gun shop for its role in "causing" her daughter's death? Ever since Craigslist killer Philip Markoff chose a fast exit by suicide, Julissa Brisman's family has had to find alternative targets for their anger. The true villain was no longer around to take the heat.

Based on evidence released last week by the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office, it would indeed appear that State Line Gun Shop may not have been especially careful in selling the murder weapon to a man whose identity appeared questionable. Of course, errors and omissions like this can have dire consequences, even though, as local prosecutors contend, it was not intentional. However careless, the gun dealer did not encourage Markoff to troll the Internet for victims nor did it cause his to aim and shoot at Brisman.

Were we to hold the gun dealer accountable, why stop there? How about New Hampshire lawmakers for the state's relatively lax firearms regulations? Or what about the U.S. Congress for its moves designed to protect the domestic gun trade from lawsuits and administration oversight?

A number of questions remains unanswered stemming from the arrest earlier this month of a student at MassBay Community College in Wellesley for having a loaded semi-automatic weapon in his backpack. School authorities are assessing their security preparedness, while the court investigates possible explanations for 18-year-old Darryl Dookhran's alleged violation of weapons laws. Could Dookhran have acted out of fear for his personal safety, as his attorney has suggested? Or, might his design have been something sinister?

Whatever clarity emerges over the weeks and months ahead, the MassBay episode connects to a much larger debate over the appropriate role of firearms on campus, particularly those concealed and carried for the purpose of protection.

In a recent post, I challenged recurrent proposals that would arm teachers and administrators in grades K-12 with more than just chalk. Whereas duly-sworn School Resource Officers (SROs) can and should be equipped with adequate firepower to protect the school population, teachers -- even if licensed to carry concealed weapons -- should leave their guns outside of school. Licensing requirements for citizens hardly compare to training requirements for law enforcement. Faculty are trained to educate, not execute.

The same pro-gun arguments, only louder, have been heard in response to shootings on college campuses, where much of the student population (as well as the staff) may be accomplished shooters. Ironically—and unfortunately, at least in the minds of some observers—at the time of the tragic Virginia Tech massacre, a bill was stalled in the Virginia General Assembly that would have permitted licensed gun owners to carry concealed weapons on the Blacksburg and other campuses in the state.

Largely obscured amidst the coast-to-coast fixation on last month’s massacre in Tucson and the subsequent debate over gun restrictions vs. gun rights was the January 4th shooting at an Omaha high school that claimed two lives, including the gunman. Robert Butler, Jr., a student at Millard South High School, was apparently angry after having been lectured and suspended earlier in the day by the assistant principal over a New Year's Day prank on school grounds.

The 17-year-old senior was determined to have the last word, but let his gun do the talking. By the time the gun smoke cleared, Butler had fatally shot Assistant Principal Vicki Kasper, seriously wounded Principal Curtis Case, and taken his own life.

The Omaha shooting also sparked debate over guns. Within a few days of the incident, Nebraska State Sen. Mark Christensen filed legislation that would empower teachers and administrators to carry concealed weapons at school. “If you have a kid come in to shoot a teacher ... or other kids,” explained the lawmaker, “it’s best to have somebody that can take care of the situation.”