In Texas, a law that went into effect on Monday will allow students 21 years old or older with permits to legally carry, to carry firearms on public campus and in classrooms. The introduction of the law referred to by some as a “campus carry” law coincides with the 50-year anniversary of the mass shooting that occurred on the University of Texas-Austin campus claiming the lives of 16 people. Given the prevalence of mass shootings in the United States, opposition to the campus carry law is understandable, but presumptions about the nature of mass shootings may overshadow the actual implications of the new law.
Ideally, the availability of firearms should not have a bearing on the likelihood of a mass shooting occurring, although it can be a contributing factor. The classic argument is that guns don’t kill people, people kill people, and at some level, that is true. A firearm is not inherently evil until harnessed by an individual with malevolent intentions, and through proper screening and training, that outcome should be avoidable. The availability of firearms and the ability for people to carry them in public places would only exacerbate previously established circumstances that could result in a mass shooting, but it would be a leap to assume that the presence of influencing factors in themselves would be the sole, instigating factor for a mass shooting. Just because guns are present does not mean people need to use them.
It would be nice if we lived in a world in which people could go to school, church, and nightclubs without fearing the possibility of a gunman indiscriminately or discriminatingly murdering people, but that is not the world we live in. We live in a world of uncertainty and with that comes a need for reassurance, and if that need necessitates the possession of a firearm, it may be something we will need to accept. In the Constitution, the right to carry firearms was outlined for a specific reason, and that reason coincides with the same uncertainty felt today.
The right to bear arms does not necessarily mean that the answer to every problem is the possession of guns, but it does have value by way of guaranteeing a tangible method of combating tyranny, oppression, and ultimately uncertainty. A firearm offers immediate control of one’s circumstances, and it is not surprising that in light of recent events that sense of control appears to be what the population craves. In all actuality, the introduction of campus-carry laws will probably not usher in a modern wild, wild West as some might fear, but it is a measure to address the symptoms of a larger national illness. Still, in the absence of a cure, sometimes all we can do is combat the symptoms.
— Marcus Brown
Millennials have grown up in an education system defined by No Child Left Behind and standardized testing but also by anxieties surrounding school shootings. I remember learning new shooting drills every year, having to commit more energy to learning them whenever I switched schools. Funnily enough, halfway through my high-school career, the conventional wisdom changed. In the first part of my education, we learned that we should acquiesce to shooters’ demands to avoid getting hurt ourselves. My junior year, we learned that the research showed it was better to fight back if you couldn’t get away, and drills changed accordingly. This stand-your-ground mentality has ultimately coalesced into the driving argument supporting campus carry.
Campus carry is legal in eight states, the closest to Iowa being Wisconsin and Kansas. Campus carry only applies to those who already have a concealed carry permit from the state, supported by groups like Students for Concealed Carry on Campus on grounds of self-defense against not only school shootings but also sexual assault. On paper, this makes some semblance of sense; the common argument goes that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, and there’s pragmatic truth to that.
The arguments against campus carry are equally common sense, and in many ways more compelling. Opponents argue campus carry will lead to increased gun violence and gun-related accidents on campus, but also that campus carry is contrary to the purpose of universities, which are supposed to be loci for free thought and academic debate. Many professors worry that the specter of campus carry will stifle debate and leave students afraid to express controversial opinions, with many even going so far as to rewrite or eliminate curricula on sensitive topics such as abortion.
In order for the benefits of campus carry to outweigh the cons, we have to collectively resign ourselves to more school shootings. We must sacrifice our hope for a better tomorrow for the hope that this will somehow leave our children safer, despite statistics that campus carry does not deter sexual assault or gunmen, has led to numerous accidental injuries and deaths, and can escalate arguments between individuals into gunfights. These statistical arguments don’t take into account racial disparities in who actually has the right to carry guns, best encapsulated by GOP-led gun-control legislation of the 1960s designed to curtail lawful open carry by the Black Panthers. In a country in which most people of color feel increasingly unsafe, racist enforcement of gun laws only serves to reify white supremacy and heighten fears of racist violence. Campus carry also diametrically opposes the ideals of the education system by creating a very real deterrent to free speech on campus. Campus carry only serves to make our campuses less free and less safe, and it’s time for lawmakers who haven’t set foot on a college campus in 20 years to grow up and know better.
— Vivian Medithi
