Politics, News & Issues >
US Law & Justice (Other)
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould college campuses be gun-free zones?
Results so far:
| Yes | 75% | 254 votes | Total: 337 votes | |
| No | 25% | 83 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesWith the recent shootings and death of students on the campuses of Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University campuses, it seems that banning weapons of all kinds on college campuses would be a foregone conclusion. Yet, it is not. Indeed, some have advocated a vigilante justice in which all students should be allowed to carry firearms to defend themselves in case of attack by another student or outsider. However, the fundamental problem with this logic is that the number of accidental deaths from guns is even greater than planned attacks.
Indeed, there are few places (beyond sport shooting, hunting, and law enforcement) where guns actually belong. A majority of gun owners are responsible citizens, but often these guns fall into the hands of those who are not experienced or have ill intent for their use. Schools of all kinds benefit from a gun-free environment for a number of reasons.
First and foremost is the issue of safety. Living and studying in a gun-free environment ensures that the overall atmosphere will be given over to the true purpose of college: learning. Adding the ability of gun ownership and possession to a college campus adds a new level of stress for the majority of students. It would be impossible to know who owned a gun and how that person intended its use. Many crimes in the US are committed with stolen guns, and this would be just as true on a college campus as anywhere else.
Second, there would be a false sense of security. When a gun is used as the sole means of protecting oneself, people would tend to engage in more risk prone behavior. With the known additive of alcohol (a staple for many college students), the mix becomes very dangerous. With so much drinking and partying taking place on college campuses, adding firearms to the mix is a certain recipe for disaster and accidental death, if not intentional mayhem.
If it seem so obvious that college students and guns are a bad mix, why is it so difficult to make campuses gun-free zones? The single greatest answer is the National Rifle Association (NRA), the lobbying arm of the gun industry. The NRA doesn't want any restrictions on gun ownership in any environment. However, the American public, including school administrators, students, and parents have seen the terrible results of not having a gun-free college campus. Isn't it time to stand up for a change? If only one life is saved by the prohibition of guns on college campuses, the decision will have been a good one.
Learn more about this author, Christine Zibas.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Every High School in America is a gun, drug, and violence free zone. Stiffer penalties for possession within 1000 feet are part of an effort to curb the rash of violence that currently plagues schools. Has it made a difference? Since Columbine we have had violence grow up to visit colleges, places of work, and places of worship.
Now the NIU tragedy asks if we should make the same move on College campuses, the simple answer is to say yes and expect such violence to end. The realistic answer is no, putting up signs and making stiffer penalties is not the means to curb violence.
The fact is no amount of signs or more harsh penalties will deter a person who has decided that violence is only means to gain what they desire. Be it justice, revenge, or just plain attention bans or prohibitions are mere rhetorical band-aids that do not address the real issue of violence being a natural part of American society.
I take issue with anyone who thinks a silly ban on any dangerous weapon will have any impact on the problem. A gun like a hammer is merely a tool. If you are serious about curbing violence then its necessary to address the cause and not the symptoms of the problem. The gunman at NIU had followed all of the legal requirements to own firearms. The breakdown is a society that inundates its members with violence and then acts surprised when a select few decide to use violence.
How about a ban on violent games? Violent and sexually charged visual media? Many would screech at the attempt to abridge our First Amendment rights, only to howl for restriction if not elimination of our Second Amendment rights. Thinking that such an action would actually solve the problem.
The problem is not guns. It is a society that bombards our youth with violence. Games reward those who can kill the most (Doom, Halo, Grand Theft Auto, etc..) Movies glorify murder and torture of innocents and guilty alike (Saw, The Hills have Eyes, Rambo, to name a few). Television with ever relaxing standards where you win the prize by screwing over the other guys (Apprentice, Survivor, Greatest Race, Big Brother, and Real World). The violence is there all day long in a variety of forms. The qualification being a thin line that designates violence as entertainment being okay but in reality its wrong. Clearly the line has been blurred and violence on a large scale is the result.
On top of all of this is a system that seldom if ever punishes those who perpetrate violence. How many people speak out against the death penalty? Only to watch repeat offenders they fight to save continue killing guards, other prisoners, and they train a younger generation the methods to work our system avoiding serious consequence for ever escalating violence.
In addition to the blitz of violent media and lax punishment of those who violate the law, we as a culture seek to blame institutions for failing when an individual commits a very public act of violence. My Aunt Mollie said it best, "I see some other person pooped in your pants, so now its some other person's responsibility to clean it up?" How about figuring out that individuals can be provided all the institutional support in the world and still they choose to do something stupid and tragic? Every time this kind of tragedy occurs their is a rush to blame those who should have seen the warning signs.
As a teacher part of my job is to report to my chain of command when a student is giving off dangerous signals. This is another one of those damned if I do and damned if I don't situations. If I report concerns then I am violating someone's sacred right to privacy. If I don't report then I am guilty because the system and not the individual are accountable for their actions. Think about that before you shake your head and grouse about the failure of some institution to act to prevent a tragedy. Imagine if the government had stepped in to arrest the 9/11 attackers on September 10. The media and people would have cried foul at the heavy handed actions used under the guise of security.
The point to my rant is for people to recognize the hypocrisy of calling for a ban on guns to curb violence. Then during prime-time they allow children to watch violence, sex, and evil in general. Until we face the uncomfortable reality of our permissive attitude towards violence, actually punish criminals for crimes sooner than later, and finally hold individuals and not institutions responsible for behavior the violence will continue and probably grow.
What has happened was truly a tragedy. How we react is going to be the measure of its potential to happen again. Banning tools when used improperly is not a solution. It is a band-aid to salve our collective conscience while we tune into to violence that is entertaining as long as it only hurts others and not us.
Learn more about this author, T. M. Beeker.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- US Law & Justice (Other)
- Should US attorney Johnny Sutton be forced to testify in the case of Ramos and Compean?
- Are insider trading laws really needed?
- Do hate crime laws prevent hatred in America?
- Should the US Senate retain "confirm and consent" powers over high court nominations?
- Is the United States becoming a police state?
- Should there be a federal law against prostitution?
