According to data from the "Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Florida 1960-2008" available from the FBI, violent crimes committed with handguns decreased after right-to-carry laws were passed.
Data from the "Uniform Crime Reporting Program, District of Columbia 1960-2008" also available from the FBI shows that after D.C. passed a handgun ban (in 1977), the murder rate increased from 30 to 80 (per 100,000).
Shortly before the ban was removed in 2008, the murder rate returned to 30, and since the ban was removed, has decreased still further.
Ms. Schneider (last week: 'I will never feel safe on campus again')also proposes an entirely hypothetical situation in which a student (who is possibly intoxicated) with a firearm shoots someone behind them because the shooter believes that the individual was following them.
Ms. Schneider has apparently never met anyone who has gone through the legal process to obtain, register and carry a licensed firearm.
The first flaw in Ms. Schneider's situation is that legally armed citizens (LAC) are taught not to draw unless it is an obviously life-or-death situation.
The second flaw is that LACs are generally prohibited from entering bars while carrying, much less actually ingesting alcohol.
Ms. Schneider then asserts that pepper spray is a preferable means of self-defense. This is simply untrue.
Pepper spray, while useful in certain situations, is flawed for a number of reasons. If there is any wind, the stream of spray will be dramatically affected.
The number of shots available in the typical container of pepper spray is limited, so anything adversely affecting aim is severely limiting. Pepper spray is only effective if it is used in a very specific area (the eyes).
Finally, Ms. Schneider argues that "Even if guns are permitted as a means of self-defense only, there is certainly a risk that they will not be used as such."
She then goes on to list a few school shootings, and state that "it would be easier for a large-scale shooting to occur." This is a baseless argument, one that is simply not supported by any available data.
Every shooting listed by Ms. Schneider occurred in schools where concealed carry is prohibited.
In fact, the available data would imply that allowing concealed carry on campus would deter potential shooters.
Arguably, we would all be safer if LACs were allowed to have their firearms on campus. I base this on the fact that in 1995 Utah passed laws involving concealed carry. Utah did not create "gun-free zones" in schools.
To date, we have zero incidents in Utah involving misuse of a lawfully carried firearm in a school.
Anecdotally, in 1997 a Mississippi principal at Pearl Junior High apprehended a school shooter after retrieving his lawful .45 from his truck. When confronted with armed resistance, the shooter stood down.
School shooters select schools as their targets because they know that there will be no resistance. It is a cowardly act by cowardly individuals, and if they thought that their targets might fight back, they would select a different target. I contend that Ms. Schneider has nothing to fear from LACs and would be a much safer individual were her classmates permitted to have their firearms with them.
Tom Dowling
senior, sociology
Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.
