The bill to allow concealed carry guns on school campuses has me in a bind. There are so many arguments for both sides of the story that I just do not know which one I lean towards more.
Coming from England where guns are illegal they have always been a somewhat taboo subject, mostly because the civilians who carried them were obviously dangerous and were therefore not talked about and were avoided at all costs.
Moving to Texas has been a huge adjustment in that sense, especially moving in with my stepdad who is 100% pro guns and prides himself on his personal collection. Living in this new environment for the past three years has slightly desensitized me towards firearms; however, I still do not know if I would be completely comfortable knowing that my fellow classmates were packing and I didn't know about it. On the one hand there is the argument that someone carrying a concealed weapon could diffuse a potentially harmful situation should a crazy killer come onto campus; however I do not know that my faith in humanity is strong enough to believe that one of these students carrying a gun would not turn into that same crazy killer and turn on their fellow classmates.
That being said I am back to being torn with this whole proposition. I guess at the end of the day it just comes down to ones trust and faith in other people because whether the bill gets passed or not is out of my hands. I just hope that if anyone were to have to use their concealed carry weapon on campus it would be to protect and not to harm.
4 comments:
This has been the hottest political issue I've heard discussed on campus. To me the bill is extremely short- sighted. Throwing guns at guns doesn't sound like well drawn up legislation to me. While reasonable arguments can be made (stopping campus shootings and introducing responsible gun owners to campuses) they are only beneficial hypothetically. Imagining the same scenario the pro conceal and carry folks offer up, let us imagine a shooter lighting up our campus. The response of a young student who has a concealed gun will most likely be to freeze or to misfire due to pressure. Not only that, once the police respond, the young man may be confused for the assailant or simply slow down the retention of the guilty party. As a police officer having received word of a school shooting, how would you be able to decipher a well intentioned shooter from afar. I imagine this would be quite difficult. While shootings happen every so often they are quite rare by society's standards and college campuses remain a relatively safe place to live. Another concern of mine is the fact that theft is the number one crime on campus, so a gun that isn't properly put away could end up as a future tool for a student who broke into a gun carriers room. The only positives to passing this piece of legislation are all speculative, those who live in reality realize the grave mistake of such a reckless policy. That's my two cents. I enjoyed reading your article, it's a great starting point of an important discussion.
Politics Are Bigger in Texas blog has a post titled To Carry or Not to Carry written by saphia alami. This post shows the two apposing views on if concealed handguns should be allowed on college campuses. The first view is that people should be allowed to carry concealed handgun on college campuses for self protection. The opposing view argues that concealed handguns should not be allowed because it would promote violence on college campuses and could lead to shootings. To carry or Not to Carry efficiently shows the writers personal feelings on the issue and how both views on the issue have valid points. Concealed handguns on college campuses could work if colleges were to closely regulate who is qualified to carry a concealed weapon. If someone decided to start shooting people at a college campus they would not hesitate because they do not have permission to carry the weapon on the campus.
One of the main points I like to introduce to the gun control debate is that most school shootings, as well as other violent gun offenses, are not carried out by people who have bought, trained on, and legally conceal or carry their firearms. It may be a more of a right-wing view then one would normally hear from me, but legislation that inhibits the proper maintenance and use of firearms seems to only do harm. Let me explain...
Right now, it is still legal to obtain a firearm, and furthermore a concealed carry license. Most would find it interesting that it is also legal to obtain suppressors (“silencers”). It is legal to have these weapons in your homes and in your car (with limitations). Every single member of my staff at work owns several rifles and pistols, some for hunting, some for tactical use. There are far more guns next to you at a stoplight than you would probably ever want to realize.
Yet the “wild-west”, fear-mongering scenario, that if this law is passed that everyone will buy guns, will bring them to campus, and have a shoot-out, has not presented itself. Therefore, this extreme of the debate is debunked from the start. The other side of the argument, that a trained and competent bystander, legally carrying a firearm, might effectively neutralize one of these tragic scenarios, has never been proven because people who do own tend not to carry concealed out of fear of criminal prosecution. Hmm...
When you go to the local firing range or gun store, the people who are actively pursuing these endeavors (buying, collecting, researching, using and training how to use guns) are usually gun enthusiasts, ex-military or police and the odd self-defense-case beginner. When people want to shoot up a school, they do not go through the paperwork and waiting periods to obtain and carry their weapon legally. They steal or illegally obtain a firearm, walk right through the doors and begin to indiscriminately fire upon the masses. So logic, to me, clearly sides on the removal of legislation that would inhibit the so-dubbed “hero” scenario.
A common rebuttal is the tactical nightmare the authorities would face if arriving on scene at a shoot-out. If the police were to arrive just as the innocent was returning fire, yes that would be potentially tragic. However, a trained shooter will not only fire calmly and selectively, providing an immediate advantage over an assailant who is usually not emotionally stable in the first place, presumably ending the situation before the police arrive, but will know when to drop his weapon when told, and holster it once the subject is subdued. It does not necessarily even have to be a fatal wound even, as most train for center-mass shots until the target drops. So the best-case scenario is that the crisis is averted. We all understand the worst case scenario, but that would be happening anyway, as the assailant fires shot after shot in the minutes until the police arrive on scene and decide how to breech the situation. I personally would like at least the possibility of a fighting chance.
Having legally carried firearms on campus would also provide what I believe to be a very motivating deterrent factor. These head-case school shooters are only doing this because they know their victims are unarmed and it feeds their need for control over their obviously disturbed worlds. They might choose to take their grievances elsewhere if they thought they might have to contend with someone who could actually aim.
For the previous reasons, I truly believe that when everything is laid out logically, and if guns weren’t so taboo and more people were given the chance to become comfortable with them, learning respect to replace the fear, that legislation allowing concealed carry in more places would be met with a bit warmer of a welcome.
Post a Comment