The Student Government Association will hear a proposal today from Liberal Arts Senator Matthew Hurtt attempting to make it legal for students and faculty to carry guns on campus. The rational behind this resolution is that MTSU will become safer once students are able to defend themselves using firearms, assuming they have the proper licenses and permits to own and carry a weapon. The resolution cites the massacre at Virginia Tech, invokes the Second Amendment and points out that those who "enter a college campus … with the intent to physically harm other innocent persons will disregard established laws … in order to carry out such actions."
All in all, it doesn't sound like too bad of a proposal, unless you actually take into account the behavior of college students and the reality of guns and their owners. The people who want to carry guns on campus may want to do so in order to protect themselves, but what this really means is that they will be using them, or tempted to, out of fear. A walk to your car alone at night could turn into something deadly if someone else walking nearby suspects you have less than noble intentions. In arguments and fights, how many people would be tempted to solve the disagreement with their sidearm than with words? People are also more likely to survive a fight that uses fists than one that uses firearms.
Hurtt's attempts to gain support for his resolution runs dangerously close to capitalizing on tragedy, citing examples of and seeking support from groups dedicated to events such as the Virginia Tech Massacre, the death of University of Memphis student Taylor Bradford and the attack on MTSU freshman Ashley Manis.
However, if the gun legislation's support is motivated by fear, how would the guns be used on campus? Making it legal for students to carry guns on campus will not automatically train these students to use them responsibly, in emergency situations and it will not teach them how to use their weapons without hurting innocent bystanders. Gun owners will not suddenly be possessed of a sixth sense that will allow them to identify and prevent danger to themselves and others with no risk. Who could consider these risks and believe the benefits outweigh the dangers?
In short, this is a proposal that would endanger more than it protects. It seems it's just another example of blind ideology trumping common sense.
Be the first to comment on this article!