Concealed Carry on Campus: Bad Idea
Well, it seems that concealed carry on campus is up on the docket at the state legislature these days, and lawmakers are actually taking it seriously.
Outside of the military, I can’t think of a school anywhere in the world where students are allowed to pack heat. After all, the presence of weapons in a classroom does not exactly foster an atmosphere of learning and achievement. On top of that, suicides, crimes of passion, and accidents all become easier, deadlier, and more likely to occur in the presence of guns. Conservative pundits claim that having lots of guns everywhere will protect us from the bad guys, but I believe that ubiquitous guns only make everyday life more dangerous.
However, at the core of this issue is a hierarchy of rights: property rights versus second amendment rights. Both are guaranteed by the Constitution and the laws of the land, but the former almost always trumps the latter. Property rights are more sacred than second amendment rights, and that’s as it should be. You have every right to own a gun and to carry a gun, but you don’t have a right to carry it into the home, business, etc. of someone who doesn’t want guns there.
This hierarchy of property rights over second amendment rights is obvious and non-controversial. It only becomes muddled because conservatives have a habit of forgetting or ignoring the concept of public property. Public universities, courthouses, city halls, park facilities, and so forth have as much of a right to control their property as individuals and private institutions do. Moreover, these decisions of how to use public property are ultimately accountable to each of us, by virtue of the people we elect.
A public institution banning guns is not acting contrary to the Constitution; it is following it.
Also at play here is the myth of the gun-slinging cowboy who solves problems with the iron on his belt. Attention conservative pundits: a concealed handgun license does not turn you into Jack Bauer. Get over yourselves. The theoretical possibility of stopping a crime in a blaze of glory is no more likely than the theoretical possibility of needlessly increasing the body count of a crime. Exhibit A: the complete Joe Horn 9-11 call.
CHL bearers are trained to use their weapon safely and accurately, but peace officers are trained to handle dangerous situations legally and ethically. It’s true that the CHL bearers I know personally are good people (indeed, I plan on getting a CHL myself some day), but I would still rather have a police officer or sheriff’s deputy watching my back than any number of CHL-certified citizens.
Call your representatives today and tell them that you oppose concealed carry on campus. Here’s the contact info for Lubbock-area representatives:
Share ThisSenator Robert Duncan
(806) 762-1122Rep. Carl Isett
(806) 763-2366Rep. Delwin Jones
(806) 763-4468Rep. Joe Heflin
(806) 675-8076
April 27th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Scientists now believe that the frontal lobe of the brain — which controls planning, judgement, and impulse control — doesn’t become fully developed until one’s early 20s. It seems like the last thing that would improve safety on a college campus would be adding guns to the mix.
April 27th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Good Idea, call and tell then that:
An armed Society is a Polite Society. And
Society is safer when criminals don’t know who is armed!!
Gun free Zones don’t WORK do they???
April 27th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
First, let’s recognize that police can’t prevent crime, only respond to it. Second, it is reasonable to assume that there have been cases in which crimes have been prevented and lives saved by armed citizens who never fired a shot, and therefore are not recorded in the statistics compiled by law-enforcement agencies.
That said, even though I own firearms and support the right of concealed carry I can’t imagine allowing guns into colleges unless it is restricted to the professors and administrators, and even then it seems unnecessary since most colleges have their own police forces that are already armed and on campus.
Why would you want to increase your chance of being mistaken for an assailant by wielding a gun during a school shooting?
Besides, when a gunman opened fire at the University of Texas in 1966 armed civilians returned fire but were not successful in preventing or ending the incident.
April 27th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
There are 12 colleges (32 campuses) in the United States where concealed handgun license holders are allowed to carry concealed handguns on campus. Anyone wanting to know the FACTS of this issue should Google “SCCC Handbook: Texas Edition.”
April 28th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
@jross — Exactly.
@S Wilson — There are way fewer gun deaths with fewer guns around.
@John — I also support the right of concealed carry, but only so far as it doesn’t trample property rights. I agree with your points about college campuses in particular.
April 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Regarding your response to S Wilson:
I would agree that there are fewer gun deaths were there are no guns at all, but there are plenty of places with fewer gun deaths than the united states that have more guns per capita. In fact, there are two places I know of that have mandatory gun ownership, and they both have very low rates of gun deaths specifically, and violent crime in general.
Also, surveys conducted in our prisons have indicated that knowing that the occupants of a home are armed significantly deters burglers.
April 29th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Re: Property Rights
The way HB 1893 and SB 1164 are currently worded, they would not trample property rights. Private institutions of postsecondary education would be allowed to continue restricting concealed carry on their property. Public institutions would, essentially, fall under the same rules as other public buildings where concealed carry is not statutorily prohibited.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:55 am
Texas CHL bearers are NOT “trained to use their weapon safely and accurately”. There is no “training” in the use of their weapon at all however, they are required to show proficiency in using their weapon (safety and accuracy) at the shooting range. The CHL classses focus on conflict resolution and all the reasons one should NOT even draw one’s weapon … CHL holders cannot pull their gun and wave it at someone as a threat! That is called brandishing and it is illegal. The course seems to be designed to scare one out of firing their weapon, ie … once that bullet leaves the barrel, the shooter is responsible for whatever it hits. In other words, one better be darn sure that it’s a matter of life & death before pulling the trigger.
In every gun forum I’ve visited, people express over and over how they hope they never have to use their weapon, but they also refuse to be a victim if they are attacked. We who have CHLs understand that the police cannot possibly be there to protect us 24/7 and have thus decided to be responsible for our own (and our loved ones’) safety.
It’s not about being a vigilante or hoping to save everyone around us. It’s about personal safety. If I’m at a mall and hear gunshots three stores down, I’m calling 911 while heading for an exit. If the shots are one isle over in a grocery store, I’m heading away from the shots but keeping my eyes open for threats toward me.
July 15th, 2009 at 8:02 am
Two more comments … the thought of a sherrif’s deputy watching one’s back is great in the perfect world. The fact is that there aren’t enough law enforcement to watch everyone’s back at once. Law enforcement is reactive. They don’t know where the next crazed gunman/woman is going to pop up. It could be at a school, mall, fast food joint, church, etc … Thinking there just might be an officer nearby is a pipe dream. If they were that numerous, there couldn’t be the mass shootings …
Last, more gun laws only restrict the law abiding citizens from protecting themselves. By definition, the criminals ignore the laws. Making certain areas off limits to guns DOES NOT WORK. If someone has evil intent, is a sign on a door stating “Gun Free Zone” really going to stop them? We already know the answer to that question. Gun Free Zones should really be called Free Crime Zones.