So the WSU Daily Evergreen ran a horrible opinion piece today regarding carrying concealed weapons on campus. The piece was so full of inaccuracies, it just couldn’t be ignored, especially since many will take it as fact.
She starts by listing off Texas and Arizona which are currently looking at legalizing concealed carry on campus as Utah has done. She then follows this up with this baffling quote of contradiction.
I believe people should exercise their right to bear arms. Though I believe the right to bear arms should not be negated under any circumstance and strongly agree with the National Rifle Association slogan which states, “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people,” I have to question the expected benefits that come from passing these laws. Texas and Arizona are known for their gun friendly customs, but most students and faculty do not want this legislation passed. If the state’s efforts are to create a safer environment for the campus, they should pay more attention to the desires of the student body.
There is a common theme throughout that entire comment, feelings. There are no facts presented, she attempts to justify the position by how most students and faculty feel. Her arguments then continue on to what is called projection. She uses many of the classic examples that we often hear the VPC or Brady Campaign use.
- The problem is actually quite rare and carrying is unnecessary.
Most people have a fire extinguisher in their kitchen, not because there is a high likelihood of fire, but because it’s a tool that can stop the problem before it becomes severe. People have disaster preparedness kits in their garages for rare and statistically unlikely events. Many have training in CPR and First Aid, I also am a Certified Rescue Diver, not because I expect to use any of them, but they are tools and training to help in an emergency.
Firearms are tools, they are carried not in the hope that something will occur, but to be used in the event of the unexpected. Hope is not a plan, and wait is not a verb. People who can defend themselves as well as others are disarmed and forced to be victims by the ban of weapons on campus.
People carry all the time, more than you probably even realize. How is there a magical line that makes the campus any more safe than any other place? Also, firearms are not used only in the incident of a mass shooting, but are used in other forms of self-defense against violent crime.
- Police won’t be able to differentiate between the good guys and bad guys.
This is a classic argument used by gun grabbers. It has been proven false numerous times, including at Appalachian School of Law, New Life Church Shootings, and even in Tucson a carrier not only wasn’t shot, but didn’t shoot the person who disarmed the shooter. Searching through Google, I was not able to find any news article, or standard post indicating this has ever actually happened. All I was able to find was stuff from the VPC and Brady Campaign spreading their lies.
- Someone else may obtain the weapon and use it.
Not everyone attending the university lives in the dorms or in Greek housing. Why should they be punished and prevented from defending themselves because others do? That aside, there are methods that can easily be employed to secure a weapon, even in dorms or Greek houses.
- Carriers could go and get drunk while carrying.
This shows a complete ignorance of the law. It is illegal to be drunk and carry. Not only is it illegal, but it can result in your permit being suspended, weapon confiscated, and a mess of legal bills. This whole assumption centers around projection. The author sees herself doing it and assumes that everyone else would. The bigger problem with that though is permit holders are some of the most law abiding people in the country.
These points also ignore the fact that 26 different colleges in three states have legalized carry on their campuses for permit holders and none of these points has been a problem.
At the end, she closes that the school should fund alternative methods of security. This action is nothing more than a security theater. The fact is you are responsible for your own safety and security. No matter how much money you throw at the problem, you will not be able to solve it by alternative methods. Preventing people from effectively defending themselves serves no other purpose than to ensure that they are nothing more than defenseless victims should the unlikely actually happen. This whole argument is about being prepared for the unexpected. Just because it is unexpected doesn’t mean it can’t happen here.