They erase size, speed and strength advantages.
They are ideal self-defense devices.
Just carrying a gun can make a person feel more prepared, safer.
As is often stated by various groups and people, it’s our right as American citizens, under the Second Amendment, to own and bear arms.
But how far does that right extend?
Should we be allowed to carry weapons on campus?
How about in municipal buildings and churches?
Bars?
Day cares and schools?
Where is the line?
The University does not allow weapons on campus property, including concealed handguns.
Alabama state law does allow concealed carry, but gives university presidents the option to ban weapons on campus property.
Which leads to a gray area: Where does campus end and the city begin?
If you’re standing at Toomer’s by the tree and you cross the street and stand before the entrance of the Bank Vault, are you now off campus?
Or, if a person is carrying a concealed weapon and they just happen to wander into the campus area for a couple steps, are they subject to the anti-weapon on-campus law?
The point is most likely moot, as no one should know you’re carrying a concealed weapon, because, as the name implies, it is concealed.
More than likely, a person carrying on campus will not be searched, and no one will ever know he or she brought a weapon onto University grounds.
For all we know, classes could be full of students packing heat.
The sorority girl sitting two rows up in Biology 101 class could have a handgun in her purse, and you’d never know.
Nor would anyone else, if she kept it properly hidden.
Unless, of course, an incident occurred.
If, God forbid, a student brought a gun into the classroom and started shooting, she’d theoretically be ready.
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus and its president, Victoria Gulley, believe students should be allowed to carry on campus for that very reason.
“A firearm is 60 times more likely to be used to save a life than to take one, and they are very effective means of self-protection, so not being able to carry one on campus just makes us very vulnerable,” Gully said. (from “Concealed carry laws create controversy,” A1)
Gully also said the Virginia Tech shooting might have been stopped if students were allowed to concealed carry.
Although, if students were legally allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus, other issues would arise.
If a shooting did occur and students had and were using weapons to combat the shooter, it would be difficult for police officers and trained professionals to decipher who was shooting whom.
Increased weapons would only add to the confusion and perhaps lead to the wrong person being injured or even killed.
And even though a person must be properly trained and licensed to concealed carry, that person is still not a professional.
Placed in the wrong situation, such as a shooting or any other kind of high stress, violent situation, mistakes would be made.
Consider trying to take steady aim while under fire, your classmates shrieking and fleeing madly.
Not an easy situation.
Would students be and feel safer if guns were allowed on campus, and they knew chances were, their classmates were carrying?
Perhaps it’s naïve and unrealistic to say a shooting on the level of Virginia Tech or Columbine wouldn’t or couldn’t happen at Auburn, but allowing guns on campus to try to combat outlier situations, situations which are difficult to predict and hard to prevent, seems like poor logic.
Concealed carry on campus wouldn’t necessarily make for a safer student body, just a more paranoid one.
In January 2006, prior to the shootings, legislator Todd Gilbert had introduced a related bill into the Virginia House of Delegates. The bill, HB 1572, was intended to forbid public universities in Virginia from preventing students from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun on campus. The university opposed the bill, which quickly died in subcommittee. Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the defeat of the bill, stating, "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. It is because I am significantly less paranoid when I open carry. Open carry of a handgun is a flat-out deterrent to crime and ninety different kinds of cattle manure that occurs in every day life. The last occasion I had to carry my firearm concealed, I was a mark for an easy snatch and grab at a gas station. Without my gun on my side, I was left with only two choices: Remain paranoid and wait for the other person to flinch or move in some manner that was appropriately threatening to use the firearm, or try to convince that person to step away from my car without taking it or its contents. A concealed firearm is not a deterrent of any sort; it is merely an absolutely last grasp at self-defense when a mortal threat has been made. A person carrying a concealed firearm presents no outward signs of being a threat to a would-be mugger, robber, or rapist any more than any other person walking down the street without a firearm. However, a person openly carrying a handgun, in a proper holster, gives anyone pause, only because our society is so used to the image that Hollywood has sold us that anyone (criminal, cop, kid, parent, or loner) will use a gun for the wrong purpose given a chance. People don't have any concern with cops running around with guns openly, or armored car personnel, despite the fact that the former is a state peace officer and the latter isn't. And yet the idea of a lawfully armed citizen walking around scares so many. Why is that? Is it because every time there is a story in the news about guns, it involves the misuse of firearms? Is it because of the video of the DEA Agent, proclaiming himself to be a firearms professional, negligently discharges a loaded firearm in a classroom full of students? Is it because anyone lawfully, legally carrying a firearm is mocked in the media? Or does the reason sit even deep in the psyche of so many who possess an abject fear of a firearm because it makes a really loud noise when you pull the trigger, and produces a magic-like destructive power? Our forefathers, who brought forth this great country on this continent and a few islands, were intimately familiar with firearms. Without firearms, the United States Of American would not exist and we would all be subjects of the United Kingdom. But I digress. Concealed carry of a handgun is absolutely useless against crime unless another person has already created a situation so dangerous that it justifies killing another person to remove one's self from the encounter. It is only through open carry of firearms that crime can truly be deterred. It won't stop all crime, because there are the criminally insane in the world just as in comic books -- but it will prevent some crimes of opportunity. The price for liberty is eternal vigilance. The price of true security may be negotiated at your nearest firearms dealer.
the no guns on campus law should be repealed so that all of us god-fearing, gun-totin americans who actually use guns safely should be able to celebrate the service they're doing for the community. i guarantee anyone considering a virginia tech-esque attack on campus would think twice if they knew even 30% of the campus was strapped.
and what do you think is a better cheating deterrent? the possibility of getting sent to some snoozefest academic review board, or the sound of a gun cocking and the feel of cold, unforgiving steel on the back of your neck? yea. thats what i thought.
i for one would like to fire off a few rounds everytime someone makes a compelling statement during an in-class discussion. thats how the cowboys did it and thats how i want to do it.
in conclusion, "a well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of the free state, the right of the people to to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." doesn't say anything about "except on college campuses." i rest my case.
Allow me to address each of the objections you bring up. Citations are at the bottom.
--"Consider trying to take steady aim while under fire, your classmates shrieking and fleeing madly."
About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are less than 1 in 26,000. And that is with citizens using guns to prevent crimes almost 2,500,000 times every year.[1]
--"Increased weapons would only add to the confusion and perhaps lead to the wrong person being injured or even killed."
Less than 1% of all gun homicides involve innocent bystanders.[2]
--"Perhaps it’s naïve and unrealistic to say a shooting on the level of Virginia Tech or Columbine wouldn’t or couldn’t happen at Auburn, but allowing guns on campus to try to combat outlier situations, situations which are difficult to predict and hard to prevent, seems like poor logic."
Actually, disallowing guns on campus makes a mass shooting situation much more likely to occur. It has been shown that multiple victim public shootings drop in states that pass shall-issue concealed-carry legislation.[3] Between 1977 and 1995, the average death rate from mass shootings plummeted by up to 91% after such laws went into effect, and injuries dropped by over 80%.[4]
--"The point is most likely moot, as no one should know you’re carrying a concealed weapon, because, as the name implies, it is concealed."
Now there is something we can agree on.
Citations:
1: Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws, C. Cramer, and D. Kopel,
Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994
2: Stray bullets and ‘mushrooms’, Sherman, Steele, Laufersweiler, Hoffer and Julian, Journal of
Quantitative Criminology, 1989
3: Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws:
Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement, Lott John R., Landes William M.; University of
Chicago – covers years 1977 to 1995
4: Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws:
Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement, John Lott and William Landes, Law School of the
University of Chicago, Law & Economics Working Paper No. 73