The Traveler

These concerns are legitimate, but I look at the University as a microcosm of a larger community. Statistics consistently and repeatedly bear out the fact that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms results in less violent crime. Most of the time a gun is used to stop a crime, it doesn't even have to be fired. Gun accidents do occur and are tragic, but not at a high enough rate to make up for the lives saved by gun carriers.

A girl who breaks up with a boy already faces the potential of being assaulted and raped. If that guy knows there's a good chance she's packing, he's less likely to attempt anything.

The shooter at Virginia Tech was running from classroom to classroom in a building for a long period of time. The Columbine shooters had time to set up bombs. It would have only taken one single solitary student with a firearm to save dozens of lives.

"Upon looking at all of the evidence available, however, the Traveler editorial board has to side with the flower-power peace movement of the '60s."

Gee, there's a shocker. I'm glad they considered all the evidence though.

Before I begin, I would like to disclaim myself as a person who has always considered himself pretty liberal, and I have never owned a firearm in my life, though I have shot them. My reason for saying this is that many people imagine gun rights advocates as being conservative gun-hoarders. That is not actually the case, and it feels a little silly to point it out like this, but I think it needs to be said.

Many of the arguments presented by the authors of this article are based purely on idealism. For instance, the authors write, "College campuses are safe havens - or at least they used to be - where students can learn from others and express their opinions openly. They're simply not the place to be carrying weapons and constantly fearing for our lives."

Can't this be said for anyplace? Are the public park or our own homes places to be carrying weapons and constantly fearing for our lives? In an ideal world, of course not. However, the reality of modern times sometimes demands that we defend ourselves with force. This is also true for college campuses, as we have seen from the events at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University.

No one should ever have to carry a gun to protect themselves, but the fact remains that concealed weapons have saved lives when police could not respond quickly enough to a crime. A concealed weapon could have saved lives at Virginia Tech or NIU. A concealed weapon could save lives here, too, should our campus ever see such a similarly horrible event.

Other arguments presented by the authors fail to suggest that CCW on campus is a bad idea. For instance:

"Therefore, the likelihood that a person who does carry a gun on campus will be present when a crazy person enters a building and starts firing at everyone is very small."

If the likelihood of people carrying on campus is small, then why are the authors worrying so much about lawful citizens carrying on campus? This makes no sense at all. Besides, if CCW was legal on campus, more students might acquire a CCW license.

"Anyway, how many people would have the guts to carry a gun and actually shoot another human being?"

Logic dictates that any person willing to go through the trouble of purchasing a firearm that costs several hundred dollars, registering it with the proper authorities, getting the proper training, and actually carrying it on campus WOULD be determined to defend him or herself, or others, if the circumstances demanded it. I believe that most people would fight back if they had the means to do so--that is a basic instinct. Perhaps the authors should consider whether they have the courage to fight a person much larger than themselves. Then, perhaps they should consider if they were attacked by a person much larger than themselves and could not get away. Would they fight back, or would they allow themselves to be killed? Of course they would fight back.

"And what if that gun went off by accident? Could you live with the guilt of killing another human being 'by accident'?"

It's apparent that the authors have little or no experience with firearms. Guns do not fire accidentally, they fire negligently. What if someone accidentally falls down a staircase? Uh oh, better ban staircases...

"People who drive supposedly have state licenses and know what they're doing; yet the No. 1 killer of young people is automobile accidents."

Look, I can make a similar analogy with an opposite implication. People who fly planes supposedly have pilot's licenses and know what they're doing; yet flying is... wait, it's one of the safest ways to travel. The analogy used by the authors is not a good argument against CCW on campus.

"If we open campuses to guns, what's going to be next? What other tool will troubled students use to achieve their means? Bombs? AK-47s?"

Bombs and rifles have already been used before, and do you really think that being completely helpless is a better option when someone wants to go on a rampage in your classroom?

"These are horrifying events, but the point is, carrying concealed weapons on campus probably will not prevent someone intent on causing mayhem from going about his business. Perhaps the gunmen at NIU or VT could've been stopped, but the chance seems slim that someone with a gun would've been at the right place at the right time."

Again, this completely fails to show why CCW on campus is a bad idea. Even if the chance is slim, isn't a slim chance better than no chance?

"Besides, obtaining a concealed-carry license doesn't guarantee a person is going to use it correctly. And for us - well, we'd rather not live in fear that someone with a gun could snap at any time and shoot someone."

And neither does forbidding CCW on campus guarantee that no one will take a gun to campus and commit mass murder. The difference between these two possible scenarios--allowing CCW or keeping it banned--is that in the former, law-abiding citizens are given the option to carry a weapon to defend themselves against such attacks. Possessing a firearm does not magically transform a law-abiding citizen into a psychopath.

CCW is legal in public places already. It makes no sense at all to forbid law-abiding citizens from carrying protection in places that we know have been ripe targets for psychopaths.

The Traveler has looked at the evidence?

What evidence did you look at?

Certainly none is presented. Just a lot of 'what if' scenarios that are both self-contradictory and read like the talking points from the Brady Campaign.

I'll take your editorials more seriously next time should you choose to bring up evidence instead of meaningless and discredited speculation.

Samuel Keane-Rudolph
Media Liaison
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus

"A shoot-out is better than a massacre!"

I have my concealed carry permit, and I don't think this article fairly covers everything that is required to get one. I had to go to a class with a licensed instructor for 8 hours. Then, I had to go prove that I am proficient in handling my firearm. This included shooting from various distances and positions to show accuarcy in aiming. Then, my instructor notorized the applicaton. I mailed my application and 150 dollars to the state. They perform an FBI backgroud check using your fingerprints. A detailed personal history is completed. A letter was sent to the police in my town to approve my status as a good citizen. This took 4 months. I then finally got my permit. Permit holders on campus could very well save a life- maybe yours.