by Jerreck McWilliams
Staff writer
For the past 10-15 years, a debate has been going across the nation regarding the allowance of firearms and other weapons on university campuses.
Many believe that allowing students to carry weapons would prevent attacks such as those at Virginia Tech four years ago and would contribute to an overall safer college campus.
Thus, the question which has defined the past and current discussion of this issue has been “should we give our students guns, and if so, then to whom?”
But I believe we are asking the wrong question.
You can ask a group of people what they think about guns on campus, and nine times out of 10, you will get a noticeable mix of responses.
However, if you ask that same group of people if they believe students deserve a safe learning environment, will they all not agree?
It is obvious to me that this issue has become shrouded within the politics of pro-gun and anti-gun supporters, neither of which are arguing for the safety of the students, but for the right of the students to carry weapons; there is a distinction.
Having a weapon does not make a person safe. It makes them potentially dangerous. How they use that weapon, on whom, where, when and why determines who is or is not safe.
I believe the real question we should be asking is not “will guns make our students safer?” The real question is “how do we best protect our students?”
For that question, I have no definite answer. I do not believe anyone has a definite answer, yet.
It seems we have focused so much attention trying to win an argument that we have forgotten to solve a problem.
The problem is this: If a person armed with modern firearms was to slip past current university detection methods and attack a classroom full of unarmed students, they could easily create casualties before trained law enforcement officers could respond.
Now, brainstorm. Approach this problem from every possible angle, even the shooter’s. How do we best address this problem?
More importantly, what other problems could arise from our proposed solutions?
This has been the Achilles’ heel of the concealed carry and open carry policies proposed in recent years.
Yes, I believe a student trained to use a handgun, capable of carrying it maturely and knowing the proper moment to evoke its lethality can prevent, or at the very least inhibit, the damage an armed assailant can cause.
Nonetheless, a very valid argument against allowing more weapons on campus is the equation of increased weapons with increased opportunities for violence, as posited by Students for Gun Free Schools.
However, it has been argued by Students for Concealed Carry that this is a false equation, citing the fact that schools such as those in Utah have allowed certified concealed carriers to carry a handgun for a combined total of 100 semesters (split among 32 schools between five and 16 years at different institutions) and have yet to have a single gun-related accident or incident.
That is not surprising, considering that school shootings are actually quite rare. According to an article on USNews.com, there have been 57 school shootings since 1966, none of which have been at the same institution.
That’s an average of just over one shooting per year, and a fraction of those resulted in casualties anywhere near the scale of Virginia Tech.
Furthermore, many of these were not on university campuses but on primary school campuses, and most were over by the time police arrived.
To me, it appears Students for Concealed Carry have attempted to debunk one non sequitur fallacy with another for the sake of winning an argument, when in reality there is no conclusive evidence for either proposition that can be used to solve the problem.
It is evident to me that this issue is much more complicated than any party is currently making it out to be.
It is not about guns on campus, but about keeping students safe from violent crime.
We cannot solve this problem by debating the necessity of weapons; we have tried that for the past decade in legislatures across the nation and have yet to reach a definitive decision.
The future safety of our students should not be wagered on the result of political interest.
It should be designed by the practical application of concrete evidence based on objective, scientific inquiry.
If you are concerned about protecting students from school shootings, then I urge you to put more thought behind your solutions than your opinions.
The latter should follow from the former.