CRACKING WISE: Nix guns on campus
Aztec Press Editor | Jan 26, 2012 | Comments 5
By DAVID MENDEZ
Pima Community College’s governing board doesn’t want it. Administrators of Arizona universities and colleges don’t want it. The police departments charged with protecting those institutions don’t want it.
So why on earth do Arizona legislators keep pushing to allow guns on campuses?
For the second straight year, Rep. Jack Harper, R-Surprise, and Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City, have introduced legislation that would allow students and faculty to carry concealed weapons on school property, so long as they hold valid CCW permits.
In comparison to last year’s version, which would allow all gun owners to carry on school property, this new version seems a bit more reasonable.
After all, I’d feel slightly more comfortable knowing that the dude sitting next to me in trigonometry had spent at least one day training in gun safety.
But this legislation, while championing Second Amendment rights, infringes upon not only the will of those most affected by this law, but on common sense.
Over the past years, there has been nothing but opposition from those in charge of our education.
Spokesman C.J. Karamargin said Pima’s stance on the proposed legislation is exactly the same as it was last year: that guns on campus will not make PCC campuses safer.
In fact, Karamargin, said, the college has concerns that guns on campus might have the opposite effect.
PCC’s view is that lawmakers “should listen to the experts,” Karamargin said, referring to the university and college police chiefs who have expressed opposition.
For once, I agree wholeheartedly with the PCC administration.
Lawmakers seem entranced by the wholly American, “Die Hard”-esque fantasy that one average person with a pistol can stop rampaging gunmen.
Gould, in an interview with Phoenix’s ABC-15, claimed the crime rate in Arizona has dropped since adoption of the concealed carry law. He said criminals have been intimidated out of fear of getting shot by bystanders.
That’s all well and good, but many of those involved in campus shootings have turned the gun on themselves once they believed their spree finished. That doesn’t fit the behavior of someone who would be intimidated out of opening fire on innocent people.
Were there to be a shooting on a PCC campus, my fear is that students attempting to defend themselves would only add to the confusion.
Worse, given the stress of the situation and the likely lack of comprehensive training, they might add to the body count with wild firing.
Lawmakers can claim this to be a matter of Constitutional rights, but I view it as one more attempt to force an ideology onto a resisting public.
Mendez is co-editor in chief for Aztec Press. He is not Chelo Grubb’s brother.
Filed Under: Insight
Loading ...
Aztec Blog
Aztec News
Aztec Sports
Facebook
David-thanks for the response.
“Unless he’s former military, there’s a damn good chance he’s never been in a firefight before.”
This is true of the millions of folks each year that use firearms defensively, and yet in very few cases do the fears you expressed come to pass.
“He’s an unknown variable that’s just as dangerous as the original gunman” except that he’s not. Someone actively trying to rack up a body count of as many innocent, unarmed victims as he can is far, far more dangerous than one or more individuals engaging an active shooter. I would argue that if you find yourself in a classroom with a spree shooter, you are no worse off if there is a lawful CCW holder in there with you.
Even if the CCW holder did shoot an innocent person, as tragic as that would be, it’s no worse a fate than being shot by the homicidal maniac between that person and the only exit in the classroom. Shot is shot, in other words. If I had to take my chances between an armed maniac bent on mass murder walking through a classroom unopposed with me in it, or my being caught in a crossfire between that maniac and another person shooting at the maniac, I’d take my chances on the crossfire.
Consider: Nearly every spree shooter on record has either surrendered or committed suicide as soon as any credible resistance is offered. In the case of a CCW at the scene, that resistance is offered and the end of the spree may occur before law enforcement even arrives on the scene. There are several recorded instances of CCW offering effective resistance to spree shooters both here and abroad. See here for a list of some: .
http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2010/01/one-armed-citizen.html Marine goes on shooting spree-armed citizen on scene concurrent with police disarmed the shooter.
http://www.saysuncle.com/2007/12/10/mass_murderers_v_armed_citizens-2/
These stories tend to not get as much airplay, as the lower bodycount “doesn’t lead because it doesn’t bleed”
Maybe we will or maybe we won’t have consensus. Even if we don’t, it’s nice to chat with folks who think differently.
Saying that I’m frightened of those who concealed carry is quite inaccurate. But I have a feeling that we’re going to continue to disagree without any real consensus.
“But I don’t think that adding to the volume of weapons on a campus is wise.”
This is called “magical thinking.” Magical thinking is when you pretend that by controlling the behavior of one group you will have the magic effect of controlling the behavior of another group. In this case you are trying to control the behavior of the most law abiding people on the planet in the vain hope that you will control the behavior of someone who plans a school shooting. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the breakdown of logic in that attempt.
I know that people like me scare you. I can’t help your reaction to me. In the end, your irrational reaction to people who lawfully carry guns is your problem. But look at it logically. Go and view the videos from the Columbine massacre. In them you will see the helpless victims cowering under tables, getting shot at close range by two kids who have no fear of anyone fighting back. Now add one person with a gun to fight back. Assume that everything you fear comes true. Assume he’s a terrible shot, and every bullet misses. Did the scenario get any worse? How could it? The two murderers had free reign to kill. It’s a worst case scenario. There is nothing you or I could do that would make this situation worse.
Being helpless in this sort of situation is your choice. You don’t have the right to demand that I be helpless. It’s my body, so it’s my choice.
Oh, I’m not naive enough to think that isn’t the case.
But I don’t think that adding to the volume of weapons on a campus is wise. Sure, the guy sitting next to me in trig carrying is (likely) a forthright person, as he’s carrying openly. But if there were shooting to break out nearby, how am I to know that guy’s reaction, much less his accuracy? Unless he’s former military, there’s a damn good chance he’s never been in a firefight before. He’s an unknown variable that’s just as dangerous as the original gunman, making the scene more chaotic for law enforcement. I think it’s better to remove that variable from the equation entirely.
“After all, I’d feel slightly more comfortable knowing that the dude sitting next to me in trigonometry had spent at least one day training in gun safety.”
I saw this article linked a the CSGV facebook page, and I felt I should add my thoughts to the discussion.
It sounds as though the author is assuming that since it is illegal to bring firearms onto campus, that the dude next to him in trig class is not carrying a gun. The simple fact is that he has no way of knowing that this is true, and assuming that something just isn’t done simply because it is illegal is a bit naive. Perhaps we ought to bass a law making murder illegal-think of all the lives we could save!