Concealed Carry
10 02 2012The articles for this week described a new movement to establish “concealed carry” policies with regard to guns on public university campuses. Proponents of these new laws hold that students who possess guns are safer and more prepared in the event of shootings, such as those at Virginia Tech. Critics believe that allowing students to possess arms puts the entire campus population at a greater risk.
In my opinion, allowing students to keep guns on their person opens up tons of new campus safety issues. As a Kansan, it kind of scares me to think that many of my friends are attending Kansas public colleges where students can keep guns with them. Logically, allowing concealed carry will give all conflicts the potential to escalate to gun-based violence. For the most part, students who are willing to go out and get a gun and a license are much more willing to use it than the majority of the population, which increases the potential for conflict. Alcohol and drug use are also very prominent on college campuses, and are much more dangerous you add guns to the mix. Neither article cited any statistics that proved concealed carry benefits universities in any way; the potential for harmful actions far outweighs the benefit of possible self-defense.
Instead of putting guns into the hands of more Americans, students or otherwise, the legislature ought to put more stringent regulations on which people are allowed to own guns in the first place. If we could keep guns out of the hands of people that want to hurt others, then concealed guns for self-defense wouldn’t be necessary. It’s not 1776 anymore and we no longer have to worry about facing the untamed wild. Instead of fighting violence with violence through concealed carry, we ought to get to the root of the problem by restricting gun sales.
I agree with you that guns should be restricted on college campuses, but I disagree with the fact that gun regulation should be restricted. For starters, I feel that our founding fathers put the amendment in place not to protect themselves from the wild, but from invading forces or a government in the event that it gets out of control. Keep in mind that the founding fathers feared another “big government” restricting their rights and putting them into a kind of situation that Great Britain put them in. I think that a person should be screened and things that like to try to prevent as many bad things from happening as possible. I am also a big believer in personal freedom and a limited government so I am uncomfortable with the government restricting even more aspects of my life. I do understand your position and I just wanted to present an opposing viewpoint. What’s a discussion class without a some opposing viewpoints? Boring. That’s what it is.