The loss of students and youths to gun violence is very traumatic and calls out for an answer. Although minor acts of violence happen in the college and university campuses daily, terror attacks and mass casualties question the campus safety and student security (Thompson, Price, Mrdjenovich and Khubchandani 247). Shooting incidents on campuses of Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois University and University of Texas has flamed the issue of concealed guns on the campuses (Bouffard, Nobels, Wells and Cavanaugh 316). The national and state bodies have been working toward minimizing the incidents of ‘blind shooting’ in college and university campuses, and one of the measures to combat these incidents is legalizing guns on campuses (Weldon 2014).
This issue has been heavily debated over a century and there exists a fundamental dichotomy in the pro-gun and anti-gun ideologies. Following the Virginia Tech shootings, the hand gun policies of the universities and institutes were called to question. However, no form of government could legally have laws prohibiting the ownership of guns and weapons for non-criminal use. Eventually every state has some policy regarding guns on educational campuses; some states completely disallow people on campus to carry guns, however, some other states leave the decisions to be made by individual universities. Both the proponents and the opponents of this issue have their reasons to support or condemn the guns on the campuses and therefore, the controversy is inevitable. However, we cannot judge this issue as a black or white because in reality it is a shade of grey (Smith 237).
An interesting example of the 50/50 spilt in those who support and do not support the guns in campuses is the Arizona Senate Bill 1467. This bill decided to allow fire arms in the college campuses except for the buildings and was passed by the house and the senate. However, the university officials and faculty members of public institutions strongly opposed the bill. Ultimately, it was felt that the bill provided more questions than answers about ‘conceal and carry laws’ and the Governor of the state vetoed the bill.
Several ethical and social dilemmas are linked to the carrying of guns and other weapons in the school and college campuses. Individual perception about this issue varies. Some people think that keeping and bearing arms is their right and it shall not be infringed while others argue that the original intent of the laws in the constitutions of some countries was to protect the right of each state to maintain a militia (Smith 237).
THE ARGUMENT FOR
The proponents of ‘conceal and carry laws’ are worried about the condition of crime and safety on the campuses. Gun-free zones are often called as ‘disarmed victim zones’ by these people because the signs and stickers of the gun-free zones cannot stop an armed psychopath. These supporters argue that the best defense against a gunman is the one who can shoot back. These people argue that Virginia Tech murders would not have been so tragic if the students had the right to carry guns on the campuses (Smith 237; Goral 42).
People often claim that they feel safe when they have their guns close to their hands. Young college students are no exception and wish to have their concealed-weapon permit to carry their gun at college or university. The supporters of concealed-weapons in the campuses claim that armed students and staff member will deter the attacks on and in the campuses. They may limit the casualties by firing back in case of mass shootings. These students strongly wish to have guns and weapons as recourse than to hide under their desks in case of open firings (Lipka A16).
The University of Utah is a pioneer amongst educational institutes that has lifted the ban on concealed weapons on the campus. The officials from this university agree that the levels of anxiety amongst the students and staff have largely subsided because they have their own weapons. Anecdotal evidence suggest that there have been no negative repercussions in this university till date after the lifting of the ban (Bouffard, Nobels, Wells and Cavanaugh 316; Lipka A16).
According to some experts, campus carry is not untested because some colleges allowing it have witnessed the crime decline. Experts claim that gun control and limits on hand-gun permits may leave the law-abiding citizens and students defenseless. They also feel that the defensive use of a hand-gun does not harm others and several times, these uses are not reported to the police. Therefore, legislators in many states of the U.S. are considering bills that would eliminate the requirement of permit to carry concealed weapons in the case of licensed gun owners (Goral 42; USA Today).
The proponents argue that public colleges are tax-payer funded institutions and therefore, they should not be exempted from tax-payer funded public laws. This implies that if a permit holder can carry his gun everywhere, he should also be allowed to take it inside the campuses. The pro-gun groups and people disagree with the notion that concealed carry will result in students taking the law in their hands. At the same time, it is unlikely that there are many students with weapons in a class or building as the age to receive a permit is 21 years. Also, not all students who are eligible to ask for a permit will apply for it. Therefore, only one in hundred students will carry a firearm in the U.S. (Goral 42).
The pro-gun students are not only those who have directly or indirectly witnessed mass massacres like that of Virginia Tech; others who have experienced violent crimes including rape, theft, injury and robbery also support the campaigns for right to carry concealed weapons in the campuses. They argue that an attacker with a gun can only be combated with another gun for self-defense. These students have faced several challenges in the colleges or universities they are studying in. They have reported that the faculty members are reluctant to sign as their advisors if they support the pro-gun campaigns (Wiseman 53).
THE ARGUMENT AGAINST
The opponents of the ‘conceal and carry laws’ claim that allowing the guns on campuses will be a mistake and will give rise to an unsafe environment. They argue that the chances of a student or professor with a gun at the right place and the right time and having the skill to deter a criminal are extremely remote. It is worth mentioning here that everyone who has the permit to keep a gun may not be well-trained to use it appropriately. Hence, more students with more guns on the campus may cost more lives than they save (USA Today). The anti-gun people also argue that when there is a shooting, people do not realize where the shots are coming from. In the midst of such a scenario, if a person pulls out gun, he may be mistaken as the shooter and be shot himself (Goral 42).
In the mass murders reported from the colleges and university campuses of the U.S., guns were used in only half of the cases. Hence, legalizing the guns in campuses is no solution to this problem. On the contrary, it may worsen the situation because studies have established a positive correlation between gun ownership at college, indulgence in drinking and driving and higher arrest records. Therefore, alcohol, substance abuse and possession of weapons can prove to be a lethal combination for the immature youth (Smith 237; Thompson, Price, Mrdjenovich and Khubchandani 247; Domenech 25).
The officials of educational institutes argue that guns will make the campuses more dangerous. In many campuses, the weapons are prohibited not by law, but by the institutional policy (Lipka A16). As per these officials, mass shootings are very rare events in the university campuses and the best way to protect the students, staff and teachers is to employ armed campus security that is capable of quick response in the case of such incidents. Hence, arming the students for potential gun fights is not a very smart idea (USA Today).
People also argue that guns inside the classroom will affect our perceptions of what a university is and should be (Wyer 983). Therefore, universities are asked to develop their own policies regarding this issue by the state legislatures. Legislative attempts to ease restrictions on the concealed carrying of weapons on campuses have faced severe opposition from university administrators, campus police and some student groups. They suggest that allowing the licensed-concealed guns may increase the negative consequences like accidental shootings, suicides and criminal behavior. Therefore, introducing guns in the campuses will increase the danger to students at all time points (Bouffard, Nobels, Wells and Cavanaugh 316).
ANOTHER VIEW
There are people who are not on the either side and see the situation differently. They advise students that in presence of a psychopath shooter they should duck and run to save themselves. Since gun-free school/college zones and bunker mentality of lock down are now reported to be fatal, new strategies should be devised to protect the students and other staff in the case of open shooting incidents. Experts say that mobility rather than staying locked in a room is a good strategy for survival (Weldon 2014). Besides carrying the guns in the campus and arming people, there are ways to reduce crime in the educational institutes. Suspicious events and persons should be reported immediately so as to avoid mass killings of the innocent (Goral 42). Colleges and universities should employ ‘threat assessment teams’ to address the difficult and life-threatening situations. Any imminent threats to the campus community should be assessed by the campus police and security divisions (Thompson, Price, Mrdjenovich and Khubchandani 247).
Most of the campus police chiefs understand that allowing students to carry concealed weapons would not prevent the violence on the campuses. They also agreed that they should identify and monitor the high-risk students so as to minimize any unpleasant happenings. Police chiefs recommended that instead of allowing the students to carry weapons, the new students should be asked to attend workshop or seminar on violence prevention and fire-arm related issues. They also indicated the training and involvement of faculty members in the case of ‘active shooter situation’ (Thompson, Price, Mrdjenovich and Khubchandani 247).
A claim regarding the carrying of concealed weapons in the campuses comes from the law-enforcement officers. These officers are trained to respond to an active shooter and their effort to control the shooter may be hampered in presence of another intervening person with weapon(s). It is worth mentioning here that these officers undergo a nine-month academy and field training but the gun owners need to attend an eight-hour course to obtain their permit of concealed-weapons (Lipka A16).
Gun control seems to be an impotent method of de-fanging the criminals. However, people may use other weapons for attacks if all the guns are eliminated (Weldon 2014). Hence, one can conclude that the actual problem lies with the national mental health system that is not able to take proper care of dangerously ill. Therefore, instead of giving more guns to the law-abiding people, guns should be taken away from the hands of mentally ill (Domenech 25).
Some of the districts are implementing new laws that allow the teachers and administrators to carry weapons in order to protect students and staff. However, the insurance companies have declined to insure districts that allow their employees to carry weapons on the campuses due to increased liability risk (Zolkos 1).
HOW FAR HAVE WE COME?
An individual’s right to bear arms may infringe on the rights of others to feel secure. Also, in terms of college campuses, the students, staff and teachers have their own right to feel comfortable in knowing that no one amongst them is carrying weapons. On the contrary, we cannot criminalize a person just because s/he carrying weapons and his/her ownership does not implicate that they will misuse the weapons (Smith 237). Therefore, colleges and universities should have their own decisions regarding whether to allow the guns and other weapons on the campuses.
In the last two decades, there has been a dramatic shift in the state laws governing the issue of concealed-handgun license. The ‘may issue’ laws have been replaced with ‘shall issue’ laws in several states. In the ‘may issue’ legal standards, the applicants are required to demonstrate a need to carry a concealed handgun, however, in the ‘shall issue’ laws, the concealed handgun license is issued to all applicants who meet the legal criteria without a demonstrable need (Bouffard, Nobels, Wells and Cavanaugh 316).
Many universities in the United States have lifted their ban on gun carrying on the campuses. However, in most of the cases, the universities did not support the idea of free gun carrying. It is only after the challenges of the student groups and presentations in the state’s highest courts. For example, a national group called as Students for Concealed Carry challenged the ban in the University of Colorado and now, anyone can carry a gun anywhere in the university campus (USA Today).
The ideological gap between the opponents and proponents of concealed guns on the campuses seems unbridgeable (Wyer 983). It is the ethical responsibility of the administration of the colleges and universities to take concrete decisions so as to minimize the violence and crime rate on their campuses.
Works cited
Bouffard, Jeffrey A., Nobels, Matt R., Wells, Wiiliam and Cavanaugh, Michael R. “How many more guns? estimating the effect of allowing licensed concealed handguns on a college campus.” Journal of interpersonal violence 27.2 (2012): 316-343.
Domenech, Benjamin. “The truth about mass shootings and gun control.” Commentary 135.2 (2013): 25-29.
Goral, T. “Guns on campus: Five years after Virginia Tech tragedy, the debate over allowing concealed weapons on campus rages on.” University Business 15.4 (2012): 42-44.
Lipka, Sara. “Campaigns to overrule campus gun bans have failed in many states.” Chronicle of Higher Education 54.32 (2008): A16.
Smith, Termika N. “To conceal and carry or not to conceal and carry on higher education campuses, that is the question.” Journal of Academic Ethics 10.3 (2012): 237-242.
Thompson, Amy, Price, James H., Mrdjenovich, Adam J. and Khubchandani, Jagdish. “Reducing firearm-related violence on college campuses: Police chiefs' perceptions and practices.” Journal of American College Health 58.3 (2009): 247-254.
Weldon, John. “Targeting schools.” The New American, 1 Mar. 2013. Web. 22 Jun. 2014.
“When college students pack heat, the danger grows.” USA Today, 27 Sep. 2012. Web. 22 Jun. 2014.
Wiseman, Rachel. “Campaign for right to carry concealed guns on campuses gains traction.” The Chronicle of Higher Education 57 (2012): 53-56.
Wyer, Kathy L. “Most dangerous experiment-University autonomy, academic freedom, and the concealed-weapons controversy at the University of Utah, A.” Utah Law Review (2003): 983-986.
Zolkos, R. “Insurers wary of schools with armed workers.” Business Insurance 47.15 (2013): 1.
