Concealed Carry on Campus: Part 1/3
The following is my last paper for English last semester. The requirements were 10-12 pages on a topic of our choice, and frankly, I'm shocked that I had the metaphorical balls to choose gun rights for mine. However, I only managed 9 pages due to seeing someone the night before the night before it was due, when I was planning on starting it. Thus, it has been definitively proven that a guy you break up with a week later is not worth 10 points on a paper and skipping a class for the first time ever to get some sleep the next day (sorry, calculus). Nonetheless, it's 9 pages of an apparently "eloquent" argument (so much so that my teacher actually gave extra supporting information at one point) that I'm rather proud of having written, so it will be broken up and posted over the next three days. References will be included in part three.
The current social and political dogma in the world is that guns should only be used by government-sanctioned individuals such as the police and military. Most people don't question this logic, since they have never considered the possibility that it might not be entirely true. The majority of people wouldn't actively think about this topic, yet it is usually in the back of their minds as an accepted ideal. Nevertheless, there are millions of regular citizens who believe that it is a complete fallacy that the majority of the population cannot be trusted with defending their own lives by the most effective means available. There are many facts that show that allowing the general populace to carry arms is not only safe, but also necessary in many instances.
College campuses, particularly, have been a very important battleground for this issue. As school shootings grow in both frequency and number of casualties, the voices on both sides of the issue have grown stronger. Advocates for allowing weapons-concealed handguns in particular-on campuses believe that far fewer people would have died in these massacres had a student or teacher been armed and able to stop the gunman early on. Those against it claim that allowing guns would only create more incidents of violence in what would otherwise be a safe environment. Yet, while violent crime and mass shootings continue to persist amongst gun-free universities, there haven't been any incidents involving concealed handgun license (hereafter CHL) holders on any of the campuses in Utah, a state which requires its public universities to allow these people to carry.
A criminal, by definition, does not obey the laws put in place by government officials. Why would someone intent on something such as theft, murder, or rape be deterred by the fact that it's a felony or against a company's policy to carry a handgun into certain areas? History has proven that prohibiting an object or substance does little to hinder either its production or its consumption. It's well known that alcohol was still rampant in America during prohibition. Marijuana has been regulated since the 1930's, yet it is still a commonly used recreational drug today. Similarly, criminals in areas such as New York and Washington D.C. still manage to commit many crimes with guns, despite the outright bans in those cities.
There have been numerous studies that compare crime rates with gun control laws. A very popular study sometimes referenced by the pro-firearm community was performed by John Lott and David Mustard in 1997 (Lott and Mustard), and showed dramatic increases in crime in areas with stricter policies. Many efforts have been made to falsify the claims made in this article, and the results are now all but inconclusive. Due to this and other factors, much of the work done by Lott is not generally accepted within academia and is no longer the greatest source for this information.
Yet there have been other studies, one in particular, that have gained great credence amongst firearms supporters. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz found, among many other things, that gun control had little or no effect on crime rates (Kleck and Gertz). While this doesn't further the argument that criminals avoid areas with liberal firearms laws, it does show that allowing the general public to be armed will not cause the escalation in violence that many unfoundedly believe will come to pass.
Some may argue that gun control legislation makes it easier for police to identify criminals amongst regular citizens. However, one would expect a criminal to conceal his weapon for just this reason. The argument may turn then to a situation where police arrive on a scene where two people have firearms, and are unsure of which might be a criminal. In order to answer this, however, one must assume that law enforcement will show up in time to see this. Since the average police response time can be anywhere from five minutes to an hour (Bureau of Justice Statistics), and most violent confrontations only last a few seconds, it's highly unlikely that this hypothetical situation would even occur in the first place. In the rare event that something like that may happen, the cop's reaction would depend highly upon the situation, though one might guess that the demeanor of a concealed license holder and that of a criminal in the midst of his offense would be vastly different.
Law enforcement response time is itself a major factor in how necessary it is to allow citizens to carry concealed firearms. A popular expression in the gun community is, "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away." There are simply not enough officers to be everywhere at once, or prevent virtually any instances of violence in society. In fact, there have been multiple court cases in the U.S. that have ruled that police have no duty to protect individual citizens (e.g., South v. Maryland, 1855). If it is not their responsibility, then whose is it? The average person can't afford a personal bodyguard, yet no one can expect to live their whole life without having to walk home at night or be alone at any point. If the average person is barred from carrying a firearm in less than safe situations such as these, what would he or she be able to do if faced with a criminal who, due to the criminal's characteristic disregard for the law, is carrying a weapon?
The current social and political dogma in the world is that guns should only be used by government-sanctioned individuals such as the police and military. Most people don't question this logic, since they have never considered the possibility that it might not be entirely true. The majority of people wouldn't actively think about this topic, yet it is usually in the back of their minds as an accepted ideal. Nevertheless, there are millions of regular citizens who believe that it is a complete fallacy that the majority of the population cannot be trusted with defending their own lives by the most effective means available. There are many facts that show that allowing the general populace to carry arms is not only safe, but also necessary in many instances.
College campuses, particularly, have been a very important battleground for this issue. As school shootings grow in both frequency and number of casualties, the voices on both sides of the issue have grown stronger. Advocates for allowing weapons-concealed handguns in particular-on campuses believe that far fewer people would have died in these massacres had a student or teacher been armed and able to stop the gunman early on. Those against it claim that allowing guns would only create more incidents of violence in what would otherwise be a safe environment. Yet, while violent crime and mass shootings continue to persist amongst gun-free universities, there haven't been any incidents involving concealed handgun license (hereafter CHL) holders on any of the campuses in Utah, a state which requires its public universities to allow these people to carry.
A criminal, by definition, does not obey the laws put in place by government officials. Why would someone intent on something such as theft, murder, or rape be deterred by the fact that it's a felony or against a company's policy to carry a handgun into certain areas? History has proven that prohibiting an object or substance does little to hinder either its production or its consumption. It's well known that alcohol was still rampant in America during prohibition. Marijuana has been regulated since the 1930's, yet it is still a commonly used recreational drug today. Similarly, criminals in areas such as New York and Washington D.C. still manage to commit many crimes with guns, despite the outright bans in those cities.
There have been numerous studies that compare crime rates with gun control laws. A very popular study sometimes referenced by the pro-firearm community was performed by John Lott and David Mustard in 1997 (Lott and Mustard), and showed dramatic increases in crime in areas with stricter policies. Many efforts have been made to falsify the claims made in this article, and the results are now all but inconclusive. Due to this and other factors, much of the work done by Lott is not generally accepted within academia and is no longer the greatest source for this information.
Yet there have been other studies, one in particular, that have gained great credence amongst firearms supporters. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz found, among many other things, that gun control had little or no effect on crime rates (Kleck and Gertz). While this doesn't further the argument that criminals avoid areas with liberal firearms laws, it does show that allowing the general public to be armed will not cause the escalation in violence that many unfoundedly believe will come to pass.
Some may argue that gun control legislation makes it easier for police to identify criminals amongst regular citizens. However, one would expect a criminal to conceal his weapon for just this reason. The argument may turn then to a situation where police arrive on a scene where two people have firearms, and are unsure of which might be a criminal. In order to answer this, however, one must assume that law enforcement will show up in time to see this. Since the average police response time can be anywhere from five minutes to an hour (Bureau of Justice Statistics), and most violent confrontations only last a few seconds, it's highly unlikely that this hypothetical situation would even occur in the first place. In the rare event that something like that may happen, the cop's reaction would depend highly upon the situation, though one might guess that the demeanor of a concealed license holder and that of a criminal in the midst of his offense would be vastly different.
Law enforcement response time is itself a major factor in how necessary it is to allow citizens to carry concealed firearms. A popular expression in the gun community is, "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away." There are simply not enough officers to be everywhere at once, or prevent virtually any instances of violence in society. In fact, there have been multiple court cases in the U.S. that have ruled that police have no duty to protect individual citizens (e.g., South v. Maryland, 1855). If it is not their responsibility, then whose is it? The average person can't afford a personal bodyguard, yet no one can expect to live their whole life without having to walk home at night or be alone at any point. If the average person is barred from carrying a firearm in less than safe situations such as these, what would he or she be able to do if faced with a criminal who, due to the criminal's characteristic disregard for the law, is carrying a weapon?
Ouch.
-Hober (Comment this)