Spring Break
Locked and Loaded
Mike R. Meyer
|
In the wake of the recent tragedy at Northern Illinois University, it's very likely that the issue of gun control, and specifically gun control on college campuses, will once again be thrust into the national spotlight.
After a shooting spree at Virginia Tech University last year left 32 people dead, lawmakers and college administrators scrambled to install new security policies and update procedures. After the most recent shootings at NIU, we're likely to see more of the same.
One of the most hotly debated topics after the Virginia Tech shootings was whether or not guns should be allowed on campuses. Most major universities, including NIU and Virginia Tech as well as ASU, have strict policies against students possessing guns on campus. Even before the recent incident at NIU, the question was raised of how many more of these tragedies need to occur before we allow law-abiding college students to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms.
While it's certainly debatable if a more relaxed campus gun control policy would have prevented the shootings at NIU or Virginia Tech or reduced the death tolls, one thing is absolutely certain: the anti-gun policies currently in place didn't prevent the shootings from taking place. I don't think I'm going out on a limb here by saying that's probably because murderers and psychopaths usually aren't concerned with following the rules.
Senator Karen Johnson (R-Mesa) is the primary sponsor of a bill (SB 1214) currently being considered by the Arizona legislature that would allow people with concealed-carry permits to bring weapons onto school campuses. The frustrating aspect of this is that such a bill even needs to be introduced in the first place. Public universities are funded by taxpayers and should therefore respect the gun laws of their respective states. If a student has gone through the necessary steps to legally own and carry a gun, there's no logical reason why he or she shouldn't be allowed to do so on campus.
That's not to say that people should be allowed to carry guns literally anywhere. If a private business or organization (such as a restaurant, church or private school) wants to ban guns from its premises, it has every right to do so. I can even see the logic in state laws that ban guns from bars and other drinking establishments, simply because alcohol consumption can heighten emotions and turn a minor disagreement into something much more severe. To add guns to that already volatile mixture certainly sounds like a recipe for disaster.
But contrary to some people's perceptions, college students aren't walking around drunk all the time. Additionally, concealed-carry permits aren't just handed out willy-nilly. In order to qualify for a concealed-carry permit in Arizona, a person must be a US citizen over 21 years of age who has passed a gun safety course, been fingerprinted and never been convicted of a felony. Sounds reasonable to me.
For the record, I'm not what you'd consider a gun aficionado. I don't belong to the National Rifle Association and I don't think the average citizen has any rational need for rocket launchers or fully automatic assault rifles. In fact, I find Charton Heston and his NRA cronies to be a little on the wacky side. The only gun I own is more of a keepsake than an actual method of self-defense: it's a .22-caliber target pistol with a right-handed grip (I'm a lefty). I've never even fired the thing, but it used to be my dad's, so it has sentimental value.
While I might not be a "gun nut," I am a big fan of that pesky little document known as the Bill of Rights, and until the Second Amendment is overturned, we still have a constitutional right to bear arms in this country.
Publicly funded schools should not be in the business of suppressing or limiting that right. As I stated earlier, there's really no way to determine whether or not the tragedies at Virginia Tech or NIU could've been prevented had students been allowed to carry weapons, but that shouldn't even be the issue.
The real issue is freedom. So before you fire off an angry, anti-gun response to this blog, try to keep in mind that you have to be willing to defend the freedoms that you don't like in order to preserve the ones that you do.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
Brandon
posted 2/22/08 @ 1:33 AM MST
"The frustrating aspect of this is that such a bill even needs to be introduced in the first place. Public universities are funded by taxpayers and should therefore respect the gun laws of their respective states. (Continued…)
Carl in Chicago
posted 2/22/08 @ 5:51 AM MST
I was at a meeting where the sheriff of a major Chicagoland county spoke.
He said "anyone who gives this rational thought knows that guns in the hands of people trained and background checked make for a safer society. (Continued…)
Lee McGee
posted 2/22/08 @ 9:04 AM MST
"you might want to repeal the 2nd Amendment"?
Please note: Rights predate government; and thus, are not subject to repeal.
Since the definition of "infringed" is the same today as it was in the 18th century when the Bill of Rights was ratified, exactly what part of "shall not be infringed" do you think is open to interpretation?
Post a Comment