Guns on campus
The
dispute between those who favor gun controls and those who don’t is based on
their respective interpretations of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,
and specifically on the term, “a well regulated militia.”
Both
sides attempt to bolster their positions with statistics about the effects of
gun control laws on crime. Advocates of “gun control” believe that removing all
guns from individual citizens will prevent crime. However, looking at the
experience in a variety of jurisdictions — Australia, England, the cities of
Chicago and Washington, D.C., for example — the preponderance of the evidence
shows that crime increases when the general population is disarmed, especially
break-ins and crimes against the elderly and infirm.
The
tragedy that occurred at Virginia Tech in April 2007, where over 30 were killed
on the school’s campus, is a prime example of what happens when people are not
prepared or equipped to defend themselves.
Another
shooting on a college campus, at Northern Illinois University in February 2008,
involved a 27-year-old former student who killed five people before taking his
own life. The shooter had three handguns and a shotgun that he carried into a
lecture hall in a guitar case.
These
two situations highlight the fact that “gun free zones” make it possible for
shooters to freely attack people without fear of resistance or reprisal.
“CNN.com
readers shared their views on Thursday’s (Illinois) shooting and other recent
mass killings — with some blaming easy access to guns and others saying
gun-free zones such as schools make easy targets. Readers also said that
society didn’t pay enough attention to people with mental problems and that the
media glorified killers.” (CNN.com)
Wayne
Ellis of Allen, Texas, noted: “This is a perfect example to support allowing
licensed people to carry guns on college campuses and even into classrooms as
well as everywhere else… As the old cliché goes: ‘When guns
are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.’ The restrictions on
law-abiding citizens made them all easy prey for this or any other crazed
shooter.” (CNN.com)
Expressing
another perspective, Jeff Tormala of Molalla, Oregon,
observed: “It’s not guns. Our society has glorified violence and dysfunction
for the last 40 to 50 years, and we are reaping the fruits of it…”
Given
the environment in which we live today, I agree with those who favor
authorizing people who are properly trained and licensed to carry guns,
especially in those locations, such as college campuses, where there is a
likelihood of some crazy attacking others whose only crime is to have the bad
luck to be in the same place at the wrong time.
In
my view, anyone who is willing to put themselves at risk to help others is a
hero and should be allowed to do so. A good example is Jeanne Assam, who
stopped a shooter at New Life Church in Colorado (December 2007) after he
killed two worshipers and wounded several others. She prevented a far greater
tragedy because she was licensed to carry, trained and armed on that fateful
day.
The
police simply can’t be everywhere and available at the precise moment when we
may need them.
In
the words of John Stossel, “Gun advocates favor
freedom, choice and self-responsibility.
“If someone wishes to be prepared to defend himself, he
should be free to do so.”