With the recent rash in campus shootings, it’s an understandable time to question to think about firearms in general, and concealed carry in particular, on an academic campus. My motivation for writing is a Facebook group I ran across: [College Name] Against Guns on Campus. They make several points which I will respond to in this post, but I will also generalize beyond one college campus to discuss the issue as I see it for the larger population, expanding to discuss other concealed carry or gun control laws as I see fit. I won’t cite a lot of statistics (or any if I can help it), but will try to focus on the whys behind the issue.
From [College Name] Against Guns on Campus:
This is a group to unite the students, faculty, and community of [College] who believe that guns on campus should not be allowed.
There are three clear scenarios when it comes to guns on campus:
1) School Shootings
2) Campus Crime
3) Recklessness
That seems like a limited number of “clear scenarios,” but it’s as good a place to start as any. They go through the logic for each scenario. Let’s begin:
1) In school shootings many victims said it “happened too fast” in order to defend themselves, had they been carrying a gun.“Many victims”? What kind of evidence is that? That’s the equivalent of the “some guy” argument. I can find “many” somebodies who’ll say most anything. Ron Paul just won a straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Committee. That tells you there are “many” idiots, even when you eliminate a known source of idiots (that is, liberals). And not to put too fine a point on it, but these are the victims. They were too slow to do anything about the shootings. The people with better reactions ran away when the shooting started.
In reference to the shooting at Virginia Tech, [This College] President [. . . ] believes that if a student had been carrying a gun, in defense, he would have “gotten shot” in all the confusion; the police were simply looking for a student with a gun. How would the police or other armed students distinguish between the shooters and the victims? Armed students would not function as a tactically trained group, as the police; it could turn into fire frenzy.
No one (sane) argues that simply by allowing concealed carry on campus that there would never be another shooting. A shooting like the one at Discovery Middle School in Madison, AL (see link above) can probably never be completely avoided. The best anyone can do in that case is react when it happens, and since reaction is after everything is over, not much can be done. The shooter stopped himself. That does not necessarily mean that allowing concealed carry on campus would do absolutely nothing to prevent those shootings. For one, it creates the possibility that someone between the shooter and the target will be armed and capable of taking a shot before the attacker. It’s no guarantee, and it might happen one time in a thousand, but it’s not nothing.
In the second paragraph, the wise President of [College] asserts that his campus police and other police are too stupid to recognize an attacker from someone defending himself. This is going to be important later on, but for now, let me focus on his argument. His argument is that the police will shoot first and ask questions later. While that makes for a fun movie, that’s not how real life works. Police will stand down a suspect with a gun, trying everything in their power not to shoot the guy, even if they just saw him shoot 30 people (so long as he makes no hostile moves). The police can’t be everywhere, and neither can an armed bystander, but in the event an armed bystander is nearby when a shooting starts and the police are not, the bystander only needs to react long enough for the shooting to stop or for the police to get there. The principle of an armed bystander is that he can shoot the attacker, preventing further killing, then stand down and surrender to police when they arrive. The role of the armed citizen isn’t to form mobs or posses to track down the shooter; that is the job of the police. The job of the armed bystander is to secure the immediate area, neutralize the threat, and surrender to the police when they arrive. If the campus police (which I take to mean real police, not CBU rent-a-cops) can’t figure that out, there’s a bigger problem on your campus, Mr. President.
2) Many students take for granted how well operated our campus police is. Last year there were only 4 robberies, in 2008 there were 13, 7 in 2007, and 5 in 2006. The idea that this campus is overwhelmed by criminals is a ridiculous stereotype. As [the President] pointed out earlier, many of these students were unaware of their surroundings and were out late at night.Also, entertaining the idea that you could defend yourself with your own gun while being held at gunpoint is a plot from the movies. You’re hoping that you can draw your weapon before they can twitch their finger.
Now, the campus police are awesome, effectively preventing tons of crimes, except in 2008, when they all took a nap. I will agree that an effective police force on campus will prevent more crime than concealed carry or any other gun law. However, that’s not always possible. Police can be overwhelmed, and even at the best times, can’t be everywhere. The argument that “students were unaware of their surroundings and were out late at night” is a blame-the-victim mentality that should never be allowed in a discussion on crime. Yes, a person can affect their victimology, but crime is caused by criminals, not by a student pulling an all-nighter.
I’m certainly not suggesting that a person could draw a weapon and fire it before a person with an already drawn weapon could fire it. In fact, the best thing to do when faced with a drawn weapon is to turn and run. Hitting a moving target is difficult, especially at night, and even if they do hit you, it’s less likely to be in a vital area. But that’s not the point of concealed carry as crime prevention. First, not all crime is committed with guns. If someone pulls a knife to rob me, I’m still going to give them my money if the criminal has a knife and doesn’t know whether I have a gun or not, do you think they’re going to take a chance on bringing a knife to a gun fight? No one can ever place a value on prevention, because there’s no way to know what might have happened.
I have one more point to make before moving on to the third argument. The two arguments presented so far by the [College Name] Against Guns on Campus have included very poor strawman arguments. That is, they present an argument no one is really making and effectively counter that argument. It’s a nice way to always “win” an argument – control both sides of the debate and present your opponent’s least successful arguments, which you then dismantle, leaving the appearance that your opposition has no point. I try to avoid that, though sometimes the environment is target-rich, and I pick off some low-hanging fruit, just to build some momentum. I do, however, continue arguments past a single posting if someone wishes to offer further debate. I only walk away from discussion when the disagreements become personal.
3) The last major concern is carelessness with guns on campus. I’m sure if there were a statistic on how many drunk, and sober, fights there were on campus, it would be the highest on [campus police]’s website. Introducing guns into this equation is a bad ideaAlso, in 2008, the National College Health Assessment, reported that 31% of students were too “depressed…to function’ and 6% seriously contemplated suicide and 1.3% attempted suicide.
http://www.achancha.org/docs/ACHA-NCHA_Reference_Group_ExecutiveSummary_Fall2008.pdf
Now considering these statistics with the stressful reputation that [College] has, why would it be a good idea to allow guns on campus?
Carelessness with guns is a big deal, especially to people who don’t understand guns. Guns don’t just “go off” – they are fired or mishandled. Guns are dangerous, that’s why every war since the discovery of gun powder has used them in some way. Knives are dangerous, too. Free speech is dangerous, that’s why dictators try to suppress it. It’s fair to consider risk / reward with every decision we make, but let’s do so honestly.
My first problem is the mixing of the message – “carelessness” and “fights.” Carelessness is a concern, but a relatively minor one. If any weapon is treated appropriately, it poses no more danger than any other. A knife left out can cut or stab someone accidently, or be used violently. A gun locked in a drawer is safer than your kitchen knife.
Fights aren’t about carelessness. Fights are about immaturity. And bringing a gun to a fight is about stupidity. Maturity has nothing to do with age, but there are limits on who can legally purchase and carry handguns. Federal laws set the minimum age at 21 for purchasing, and most states also limit concealed carry permits to those over 21. So we aren’t talking about but a quarter or so of the undergraduate campus. No one (that I’m aware of) would allow unlimited concealed carry on campus. The same standards for off-campus concealed carry would apply. This usually also involves limits on carrying while around alcohol, though that varies significantly by state and establishment.
In addition, there are more than students on a college campus. There are professors, staff, and all manner of support personnel. Banning concealed carry also affects them. Drinking and fighting may be prevalent among students, and students who live on campus are more directly affected because they’re on campus more, but they are not the only ones in a campus community.
Suicide is a big consideration on college campuses. It’s a big consideration is many environments. If someone is truly dedicated to killing themselves, they will find a way. The reason guns are chosen for suicides (and murders) is because they’re effective, and somewhat easier to get right. Slitting your wrists will kill you, but it hurts, and it takes a while to bleed out. Jumping off a building can kill you, so long as you don’t accidently land on an awning, or choose a building that’s not tall enough, or make some other simple mistake. A gun ends life quickly and is pretty straightforward. And the fact is, people do manage to commit suicide without access to a gun. If someone is truly going to end their own life, they don’t need a gun.
Considering the stressful environment of the military, why would it be a good idea to allow guns there? “Stress” isn’t the factor that causes problems. Stress forces people to react rather than act. When people don’t understand something, they react. The military trains people to react in a certain way to stress, with discipline and focus. College implicitly teaches the exact opposite – stress should be handled with alcohol and parties. I’m not saying people can’t have fun, but I am saying that the problem with guns on campus isn’t with the guns, but with the campus, or more accurately, the environment of the campus that teaches young adults poor ways of handling themselves.
Since my inspiration for this rant was a college movement, I didn’t talk much about high school (or, unfortunately, even lower schools). I did mention Discovery Middle School, only a few miles from my house. Also still fresh on my mind is Columbine High. In those cases, the students weren’t even legally allowed to have guns, but they did, and they used them to kill. That raises a constant observation in the gun rights debate: people who shouldn’t have guns do, and people who follow the rules don’t. Guns were already banned in schools, yet shootings happened. Guns were banned for the shooters, but shootings happened. People who are willing to murder, don’t fear laws about gun possession.
Then, there’s the Constitution. You know, that old document that protects Christian images submerged in urine. Well, it does say something about firearms:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
We can debate commas all day long, but the fact is, the document says, “the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” You can argue about militias and the national guard, and that’s fine, but the fact is the Supreme Court has held that there is an individual right to own a gun and to carry it.
I’m not saying that every person on a college campus should be allowed to carry a gun. What I am saying is that it should not be banned just because it makes someone feel better. There should be an honest, open debate about the real pros and cons of allowing firearms and concealed carry on college campuses (or any school grounds) by those who meet a standard set of criteria. Offering half-truths and misleading statistics isn’t an honest debate.
