Guns have no place on college campuses


The Texas state legislature recently introduced a bill that would allow students to carry concealed firearms on college campuses. With broad support in both the Republican-dominated House and the Senate, the bill is likely to become law soon, and Texan students will then be able to bring their hidden guns to class.

Julia Vann | Daily Trojan

Supporters of the Texas measure, especially the advocacy group Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, are quick to point out that the bill does not allow anyone who does not already have a permit to carry a concealed weapon to bring a gun to campus. The bill ensures Texans have “the same right to self-defense on college campuses as they do elsewhere in Texas,” according to the group’s website.

The group and other supporters note that colleges generally lack adequate protection against shootings, that rules against carrying guns onto campus are unlikely to stop anyone with intent to kill from doing so and that the Second Amendment gives everyone the right to protect themselves with firearms.

These are all solid points, but they are underwhelming relative to the weighty proposal being pushed by their proponents.

It is true rules will not deter a crazy person from bringing a gun to campus and shooting, and it is also true there is a small chance someone else, if allowed, could be armed and able to  potentially stop a disaster.

College campuses, however, are places of learning and trust. Guns should simply not be permitted to intrude on the positive environment that so many colleges  seek to create. I certainly would not be happy with the knowledge that a classmate is carrying a gun, even if he is licensed to have it.

In the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, and especially in light of the recent shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona, the movement to liberalize gun regulations has gained new momentum based on the argument that more armed citizens could have prevented these tragedies or ended them sooner.

No matter how popular it is, though, this argument is a logical fallacy. More guns possibly could have prevented the Virginia Tech or Tucson shootings, but they might also would lead to new acts of violence that otherwise would not have happened.

Defenders of gun rights often respond to this line of thought by claiming the stringent requirements for gun permits mean only those interested in self-defense will be able to purchase them legally. Even if guns were outlawed, or at least made more difficult to buy, they argue, criminals would continue to find ways to arm themselves, leaving innocent people defenseless.

This logic does not hold. Both Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, and Jared Lee Loughner, the Tucson shooter, purchased their guns legally. The response to these events cannot be to make it even easier to buy and carry guns.

Although the Second Amendment guarantees the right to own a gun, the original Constitution also defined a slave as three-fifths of a person and allowed only white, property-owning males to vote. The Constitution as originally conceived was full of rules that seem archaic today; the whole concept of amendments was designed to allow the law to change with the times.

The Second Amendment was conceived in the context of a colonial revolution that owed much of its success to militia forces. In the revolutionary era, when militaries were not only seen as potential oppressors of their own people, the Constitution aimed to secure citizens’ ability to resist their government with force if it became necessary.

Today, when our military spends hundreds of billions of dollars annually on fighter jets and cruise missiles, this entire rationale is an anachronism. It has been replaced in the public debate by the misguided idea, pushed aggressively by the National Rifle Association, that more liberal gun laws will reduce violence by allowing innocents to defend themselves.

The idea is manifested in the legality of semi-automatic assault weapons in the United States and the ability of people like Loughner to purchase guns from a store. Soon that list will include the legality of concealed weapons on some states’ college campuses, to the detriment of the students, universities and ultimately, the nation.

Daniel Charnoff is a senior majoring in international relations (global business). His column, “Through the Static,” runs Fridays.

26 replies
  1. ZenBowman
    ZenBowman says:

    I don’t see how you “not being happy” about a classmate having a gun has any relevance to whether or not they should be banned on campus. Fifty years ago, I’m sure we had a lot of students who said they would “not be happy” about a classmate being black.

    Thankfully, we live in a nation of principles, and were able to get rid of those bigoted ideas against minority races that were contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. Maybe someday we will be able to get rid of the bigotry towards responsible gun owners as well.

    Maybe we should take a look at the rest of the world, and see that people all over are fighting to free themselves from oppressive governments and oppressive laws. Maybe we should learn that the way forward involves empowering the populace, not emasculating it by only allowing a very small minority of people to be arme.

    In feudal times, the only people who could legally arm themselves were knights, the peasants had no right to do so. In a free society, there is absolutely no room to discriminate between a class of people who have the right to arm and protect themselves, and a class of people who do not.

  2. Kristy
    Kristy says:

    I don’t go to USC, I go to another college, but I wanted to comment on this. I have a stalker. He wants to kill me. I’d really like it if campus police could keep me safe, but they can’t. I’d really like it if they could keep the students he might hurt trying to get to me safe if he decides to show up with a gun, but they can’t. Read the reports of “suspect with a gun” and how quickly things go bad. I can’t afford to hire a bodyguard to go to class with me, so I take the chance because I refuse to put my life on hold because of some nutjob. If my stalker shows up with a gun, I hope you have one too, because I’m a student, so I’m not allowed to protect myself on campus.

  3. David Nielsen
    David Nielsen says:

    Hey getalife, disagree, disagree means there is something to debate, and the government data and simple facts show unequivicably that people who carry concealed are not a risk, contrary to Daniels ka ka claims. So there is nothing to debate.

    Daniel wrote a pathetic piece of schiite supported by nothing but emotional ka ka and used his bully pulpit to insult the intelligence of all those who know so much more about this subject than some wet behind the ears college student.

    His was not a debate, so maybe you should get a freaking clue as to what a debate entails, you know FACTS, none of which Daniel presented in any fashion.

    In fact, Daniels heroes, the anti gun crowd, don’t have the balls to face people like me in an open debate not of their choosing as they would be shown to be utter idiots from their complete and utter lack of facts to support their position, just like Daniels.

    This is not a discussion, no solutions to violence were offered, no methods of changing mankinds predisposition to violence, all Daniel stated was he and a few minority are afraid of something they can’t see and have no evidence to prove there is a risk.

    If you are stupid enough to publish such unsubstantiated ka ka like Daniel did, then in a real world, where exists our first amendment rights of free speach, expect to be challenged and ridiculed as we are perpetually tired of hearing such blatant ka ka from such unenlightened sources as COLLEGE STUDENTS. So grow up and get a thicker skin as real life is not politically correct or quit posting such biased ka ka.

    Of course you could actually counter all the data above with real government facts and you could make me eat crow, then again, hell would have to freeze over for that to happen little boy.

    So how about you accept the challenge and debunk the data I presented or go find some topless bar stool and sit and rotate little child!

  4. Ben
    Ben says:

    it seems the authors argument against guns on campus is that it disrupts the fung shui that is so pivital in the aquireing of higher knowledge

  5. Todd
    Todd says:

    The author writes: “Both Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, and Jared Lee Loughner, the Tucson shooter, purchased their guns legally. ”

    This statement is false. Both individuals LIED when filling out the required BATF Form 4473.

    Seung-Hui Cho falsely answered “No” to Question 11.f. – “Have you ever been adjucated mentally defective(which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have been committed to a mental institution?” In fact, according to CNN, “A Virginia judge in December 2005 deemed Cho “an imminent danger to himself because of mental illness” and ordered outpatient treatment for him, according to court documents.”

    Jared Lee Loughner falsely answered “No” to Question 11.e. – “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?” It is well documented that Loughner was a self admitted “habitual marijuana user.”

    Both individuals are criminals that committed a felony by providing false information in order to illegally purchase a firearm.

    • Hal
      Hal says:

      “It has been replaced in the public debate by the misguided idea, pushed aggressively by the National Rifle Association, that more liberal gun laws will reduce violence by allowing innocents to defend themselves.”

      I’d like you to supply one shred of evidence that this idea is misguided.

      Thank you.

  6. Tl671
    Tl671 says:

    There are already 71 campuses in three separate states (Utah, Colorado, W.Virginia) that allow concealed carry on campus with Utah having allowed campus carry for the last 5 years, and the grand total of crimes committed either by, or against a concealed carrier is exactly ZERO.

  7. Mike
    Mike says:

    Also, the tide is changing because people are starting to realize that gun laws do not work and our idealistic nanny state will not protect them. Dependence on the government to keep us safe at all times is a loosing proposition. If someone is not willing to engage in self-preservation then their genes will be swept aside as they rightfully should.

  8. Tom Gresham
    Tom Gresham says:

    “The Texas state legislature recently introduced a bill that would allow students to carry concealed firearms on college campuses.”

    The first sentence of this article is inaccurate, misleading, and it is what takes the discussion in the wrong direction.

    This bill has almost nothing to do with students. It would remove the prohibition on adults who have carry permits from carrying on campus. These are the same adults (you must be 21 to get the permit) who currently carry in movie theaters, restaurants, and everywhere else, with very little in the way of problems. Students who are 21 and have the permit can currently carry all over town. So can 55-year olds. This is the group of people who would be able to carry on campus — safely and responsibly, just as they currently do.

    It distracts the discussion to say this bill allows students to carry. It just removes the ban for the hundreds of thousands who currently carry everywhere else.

  9. Mike
    Mike says:

    The anti-gun lefties are always whining about the existence of the 2nd amendment. What these idiots will never realize is the 1st and 4th amendments they hold so dear will vanish without the 2nd.

    BTW, there is no mention of race or slavery in the Bill of Rights, so bringing issues in from elsewhere in the Constitution is a trite argument as those issues could all be addressed through future amendments. That’s why they laid it out this way. DUH!

  10. someothername
    someothername says:

    Campus Police officer point of view:

    Licensees can be armed in city libraries, but on campus we prefer to create a situation of giving easy access to guns to criminals? That doesn’t make sense.

    If you were a campus police officer on a call to a burglary of a vehicle in progress, would you prefer to walk up to a burglar holding a bunch of CDs and an I-Pad, or holding a gun a Licensee had to store in his car while he runs into the library?

    Let the Licensee who carries daily in a secured concealed holster keep his or her weapon secured and concealed, not in a car for a criminal to take.

    Passing the campus carry bills will aid in keeping guns out of the wrong (criminals’) hands.

  11. someothername
    someothername says:

    Here’s the problem in Texas:

    Motor Vehicle burglary crimes have steadily increased on all campuses.

    Current policy requires that Licensees can carry their gun all over Campus, but must store it in their car while in a class or Library or building.

    Sec. 46.035 TEXAS Penal Code
    f) In this section:
    (3) “Premises” means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

    Guns are allowed on Campuses already and always have been. It’s only inside the buildings that they are prohibited.

    It is 100% more likely that my car would be broken into and my gun stolen, than someone reaching into my pants inside a classroom to steal a concealed gun they didn’t even know was there which is safely holstered and retained by a reinforced belt. (Sadly, I can’t even remember the last time anyone in a classroom reached into my pants to try to grab anything concealed in there)

    Current policy gives criminals easier access to guns. 70% of gun crimes are committed with stolen guns.

    This bill needs to pass, it’s just common sense.

  12. someothername
    someothername says:

    Ray Hunt, the 2nd vice-president of the Houston Police Officers’ Union,

    the largest police union in the state of Texas, spoke out in favor of

    legalizing licensed concealed carry (of handguns) on Texas college

    campuses and dismissed the notion that the presence of armed citizens

    would somehow cause chaos or confusion during or following a campus

    shooting.

    He also mentioned that the union had been originally fairly anti-CHL,

    fearing shootings of CHL-holders by police amongst other things. Upon

    seeing that that hadn’t occurred at all, they were happy to throw their

    support behind the concept of CHL in general, and they now specifically

    support concealed-carry on campus.

    It isn’t hard to tell a person walking desk to desk executing people

    from a CHL hiding under a desk waiting his turn so he can shoot upwards

    at the shooter and any bullet passing through the shooter hits the

    ceiling instead of other students on the floor. Police are trained for

    shoot-no shoot situations.

    The current status quo of forcing responsible adults who conceal a

    weapon safely every day store it in a car to go into the library on

    campus, just provides easier access to guns for criminals. 70% of gun

    crimes are committed with stolen guns.

    If I were a Police Officer, I’d rather respond to a car burglary and

    find someone holding a bunch of CDs, than a gun someone had to store

    there.

    If the largest group of Police in Texas who encounter licensees on

    almost a daily basis during very stressful traffic stops etc. support

    it, it must be a good idea. It’s just common sense.

  13. edward hay
    edward hay says:

    When guns are outlawed
    Only Outlaws will have guns…

    What will be outlawed next? knives? glass?
    You Dream World lefties are Pathetic.

    When weeds are destroying your lawn,
    They must be killed, not talked to !!!

  14. BambiB
    BambiB says:

    Hey Daniel?

    We tried it your way at Virginia Tech. Even with cops on campus (investigating the two earlier murders) response time was 9 minutes and all the shooting was over. During Cho’s rampage he encountered over 100 students. In most states, about 2% of the population is licensed to carry, thus, had the students not been disarmed by the school’s rules, there’s a good chance one or more students would have been armed and able to respond to his attack.

    I don’t understand why you have a problem with people being able to defend themselves.

    We don’t live in a cotton candy and sugar plum world. There are real bad guys out there who want to do real bad things to innocent people. YOU don’t have a solution. Those who advocate campus carry DO have a solution.

    As I said, we tried it your way and 30 people were executed. Excuse us if we consider your bleating about “learning and trust” irrelevant to the adult discussion of how to stop bloody massacres of young adults.

    • Sophia
      Sophia says:

      What’s even scarier than this proposed legislation is the fact that people at USC apparently support it…

      • Diane
        Diane says:

        And that is an ignorant comment. There is nothing scary about this, and any thinking person, who reads these comments, would understand that.

        • George
          George says:

          This just in: even scarier: people support people who support this dumb law. I think a thinking person like Diane should know how to use commas.

  15. J G Hilty
    J G Hilty says:

    The fact actually is that students in Utah can carry concealed handguns into all of the colleges and universities there, and have been doing so. There have been no serious problems as a result. Those who can legally carry firearms onto Utah campuses must be concealed carry permit holders who must also undergo strict criminal background checks. Student permit holders are like the rest of those in the country who are licensed to carry. They are among the most law abiding.

    School shootings are rare; however, they do happen. And, when they do they are horrendous and make spectacular news stories. But, the frequency of guns on campus and concealed carry licenses have no relationship to past shootings on college campuses.

    A “No guns allowed policy” will not stop a determined killer. Post all the “No Guns Allowed” signs you can print. Do you believe that campus police will arrive on time when a mass killing is underway or completed? They haven’t been able to do that yet. It takes time to get to a crime scene unless they are already at the building, as unlikely as that is.

    Seung Hui-Cho didn’t have a license to carry a gun when he used his to kill 32 people at “gun free” Virginia Tech. But, he did show disturbing signs symptoms of severe mental illness that many people including college staff at the school noticed, but did not report to authorities. All students could do was to try to hide under their desks as he walked down the rows and murdered them.

    At Northern Illinois University, Steven Kazmierczak had no gun carry permit and was off his Xanax and Prozak when he killed 5 people and wounded 21 others. He graduated high school in 1998 and was hospitalized for mental illness at a Psychiatric Center. A gun free policy did not stop him.

    The only common thread in these university killings is that they all took place in “gun free” zones like USC. At Applachian School of Law, a former student came on campus and shot several people, killing some. He was still crazily waving his loaded gun around when two armed students stopped him with their own handguns.
    College students are not at risk from those who carry legally. They are at risk from the likes of Seung Hui-Cho and Steven Kazmierczak.

    God forbid that some law abiding person, who had undergone a criminal background check, carrying a licensed, concealed handgun might have been in the classrooms at Virginia Tech and N.I.U. Someone could have been seriously hurt.

  16. thomas glenn
    thomas glenn says:

    “I certainly would not be happy with the knowledge that a classmate is carrying a gun, even if he is licensed to have it.”
    -You would not know that someone is carrying becasue it is concealed.

    “that more liberal gun laws will reduce violence by allowing innocents to defend themselves.”
    -that is true, look at the statastics, Texas CHL holders are the most law abiding citizens and areas with high CHL holders deter criminals, according to Texas DPS reports on CHL conviction rates.

    “More guns possibly could have prevented the Virginia Tech or Tucson shootings, but they might also would lead to new acts of violence that otherwise would not have happened.”
    -Colorado and Utah have allowed students to carry on campus for years now and they have not had one incident realted to firearms being carried on campus

    You can use all the if’s/and’s/but’s you want, the true is that everyone should have the right to protect themselves from crazy people on a mission to kill. The only way to do that is to allow people to carry; police can not be everywhere at the exact right time. Gun free zones are nothing but shooting gallaries for people that want to create a mass shooting.

  17. Mike Ebel
    Mike Ebel says:

    So you recommend that women walking back from class late at night ask rapists to just respect them and that should stop them. How dare you disarm someone with your thoughts about what is right. If we practiced that argument on any other right I am sure you would be calling foul. But since you don’t personally agree with the right to bear arms this one is OK. Also I would be fine with a gun free campus if there was full security screens at all entrances with armed security guards checking people in and out. But by posting little signs with a gun crossed out you are creating a false promise of protection and I think any damages that are caused by criminal acts where a law abiding citizen is harmed should be payed for by the College that chose to dictate everyones best means of self defense. It’s easy to bang up a sign it’s hard when you have to pay for promising fake protection.

  18. David Nielsen
    David Nielsen says:

    The first amendment is more of an anarchism than anything as words have led to more deaths than anything in the world. Or do you believe that religious zealotry has not been the leading cause of deaths throughout history?

    What about all the propaganda the Germans used to demonize and desensitize the public to killing the Jews?

    So since words and ideas are more dangerous, we should eliminate the anarchism that is the first amendment eh little wet behind the ears little boy?

    Oh, fyi, your free to state your opinion, just as everyone else is free to respond to your public ka ka and detail what an idiot you are!

    Poor little wet behind the ears little boy hasn’t a clue as to the real world, referred to in the future as “the one”

    The one where the US government, BATF, judges, prosecuting attorneys, police, and doctors, fail to enforce the background check more than 1% of the time. USDOJ Background Check & Firearm Transfer report 2008.

    The one where the state & federal courts have ruled ten times the police are not legally liable to protect the individual citizen.

    The one where the US vs Haynes Supreme Court ruling 390, 85, 1968 ruled that people were not legally liable to follow a law requiring them to violate their 5th amendment right of no self incrimination making 85% of gun control laws not applicable to felons.

    The one where the police only solve 8.75% of all violent crimes FBI UCR & USDOJ National Victimization report 2008.

    The one where where the 700k doctors in the US in a JAMA 2001 Medical Malpractice report, killed 44k to 98k people per year (.065 to .14 deaths avg)

    The one where the best the anti gun zealots can claim is 137 deaths from the 8 mil cpl licensee’s over a 3 year time frame in a VPC 2009 report. (Florida & Texas ccw government databases show this number to be less) or .00000562 deaths per licensee.

    The one where when you compare doctors to people carrying concealed, doctors are 12,000 to 25,000 times more likely to kill you than a person carrying concealed. (.065 or .14) / .00000562 = 12,000 to 25,000.

    The one where US Census shows 2008 where 18.4 mil students, 42% of whom 21 or older, went to 4,300 schools. Compared to the 4.3% of the population who have a cpl 8 mil BATF / 186 mil US Census 21 or older, we see you anti gun zealots will be exposed to 77 people in a school or 1.8% of the student population, who again is 12,000 to 25,000 times less likely to harm you than your doctor.

    The one where fools who can’t even spot a criminal carrying concealed are crying chicken little about lawful abiding gun owners carrying concealed.

    The one where the last ten mass shootings in gun free zones, we see the body count was ten times higher in the 5 that did not have any resistance. Ft Hood, Luby’s Cafeteria, Columbine, Va Tech, N Illinois.

    Versus the 5 that had resistance at Pearl High School 1997, Appalachian Law school 2002, Shoney’s Alliston AL 1991, New Life Church Colorado 2007, College Station Georgia May 4th 2008.

    The one where we see actual police and media reports collated in web sites like Keep & Bear Arms, KC3, A rmed Citizen, American Rifleman and many more showing 80 successful defensive gun uses a month, and 170 lives saved, not including injuries. Since the NRA or the 80 million law abiding gun owners do not own or manage the police departments, any claim of bias is the claim of a the village idiot.

    All while the background check only prevents less than 1,500 people a year form acquiring a firearm and factored against the FBI UCR & CDC database, show maybe one death and 7 injuries prevented a year.
    USDOJ Background Check & Firearm Transfer report 2008, DOJ Felons Firearm Use survey 1997, published Nov 2001.

    The one where the US government acknowledges that 95% of deaths where a firearm was used, were committed by the career criminals/gang members, and the crazies who commit suicide. But hey it is morally acceptable to blame the the 80 mil law abiding gun owners and the NRA instead. USDOJ National Gang Threat Assessment 2009, CDC Database.

    Too bad for little wet behind the ears little boys that all those government agencies, reports and independent studies exist proving that people who carry concealed are not a risk. If you don’t like this reality, well you can go to the responsible government agency and cry and wail to them.

    So go home to mommy as your depends diapers, like your belief stinks from being full of schiite!

    • get a life
      get a life says:

      Hey David– you know, it is possible to respectfully disagree with someone without making yourself look like some bullying idiot hiding behind an online comment board. I happen to disagree with Daniel but I think he wrote a pretty well thought-out argument. Grow up and learn to debate without resorting to personal attacks.

Comments are closed.