I've got to throw out my two cents on the endless debate, since I feel like I began this whole thing with my Hustler editorial.
Katherine, I don't feel like you are approaching the issue consistently, and that may be because the whole idea of and argument for concealed carry is misrepresented. The argument against concealed carry as has been characterized in the Hustler and the Torch is as follows: Guns are dangerous if in the hands of the wrong people. Concealed carry would put guns in the hands of students. Students are the wrong people to have guns, so concealed carry would be putting our campus in danger.
While I can't speak for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, my own justification for concealed carry begins with realizing that this policy does not create a rubber stamp for all students to have guns. I do not favor most students having guns for the sake of it. What I do favor is treating students and faculty on a college campus the same way other citizens are treated with respect to Tennessee and federal law. Tennessee allows citizens over 21 to have concealed carry permits. What makes downtown Nashville different than Vanderbilt's campus, a part of town easily and freely accessible to the public, other than the silly notion that a college campus must somehow be kept pristine?
Douglas tries to get us to think about whether or not we would want our friends to have guns. This line of thought misses the point and sells Vanderbilt students short. It's also inconsistent with his view that gun rights are important. What makes a 21 year old college student who passes the necessary background checks and tests different from a 21 year old not in college?
Douglas writes:
The goal of concealed carry legislation is to prevent rare occurrences
like Virginia Tech, but in the attempt to prevent an extremely rare
occurrence, might not this legislation only create another avenue for
disaster? Think of your friends, and how they act on a daily basis.
How many of them would you trust to be able to carry a handgun, a tool
whose primary function is to kill, on Vanderbilt’s campus, whenever
they wanted? This includes class time, football tailgates, and yes,
drunken Saturday nights at the frats.
Concealed carry is not for all your friends, or even for anyone beyond a small number of well-educated gun owners. It's the principle of the matter that is most important. By making university campuses "gun free," states are, in one fell swoop, cordoning off large areas with large amounts of people who cannot protect themselves. Aren't criminals more willing to take chances in an area where there is a guarantee that no one except the police have guns?
This is the standard argument, coupled with defense with the Second Amendment, that gun supporters use in areas of higher gun control. What baffles me most is that Douglas and Katherine are Second Amendment supporters except for in the arbitrary case of college campuses. Why campuses? Because college students are somehow less trustworthy than any other average Joe in Tennessee or elsewhere. I agree that everyone on campus having a gun would not be a good thing for Vanderbilt, but I don't think that's the goal or the expected outcome of allowing concealed carry on campus.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Good point, sir. Also, you’d have to check with him, but I think Douglas is okay with limiting gun rights in cities, while I am not.
I’ll think about this a little more, but my response: College campuses like Vanderbilt’s differ significantly from downtown Nashville. Few of us pay rent, commute to work, or have our own individual health care — the responsibilities for undergraduates are not real world responsibilities, which creates the whole concept of the Vanderbubble. Removed from the outside world, a student can lose perspective on what’s actually important, which to me, creates an opportunity for reckless behavior for which the university becomes accountable.
My concern is less about keeping a university pristine, than preventing spiked suicide rates or accidental gun violence in that enclosed, privately funded environment. The university then has the burden of creating that enclosed, safe environment. I think they do an adequate, if imperfect job.
I should add that as a society (I mean this objectively, not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing) we regard college campuses as places for “students,” who are not necessarily true adults. The prolonged childhood thing certainly has its faults, and goes back to the hovering parent thing you’ve argued was the impetus for the Commons, but this society views college students as kids.
Also, I’d add as a side note, that this is yet another of our The Logical Idealist vs. The Cynical Pragmatist arguments.
One think I think you’re forgetting Mike is that the way that Vandy Police enforce the law alters the situation a bit. The rampant underage drinking on campus that is either condoned or ignored is what sets this apart from the rest of Nashville. Vandy chooses not to enforce the law to its full extent because they believe that choice betters the community experience. If the rule of law can be suspended for these acts, it can just as easily be altered by Vandy’s laws about concealed carry. That’s my two cents anyway.