On Tuesday, ASU President Michael Crow released a statement regarding the renewed "guns on campus" bill that is being debated in the Arizona legislature. He condemned the initiative as "a misguided attempt to increase school safety.”
After emotional arguments, unclear claims to authority and saying he does not oppose gun ownership, Crow failed to understand the indispensable benefits that come with a trained and armed populous on campus.
Crow's argument crumbled in a closing paragraph of questions and hypotheticals, proving that his argument's only strength is its ability to strike fear.
Crow unsuccessfully, and to the detriment of his argument, attempted to show that Senate Bill 1474 is proposed “without a shred of evidence to support the assumption that schools are safer if students are armed.”
If President Crow wants evidence, a quick Google search will show that since 2006, Utah allows licensed individuals to carry handguns on the campuses of public and technical colleges. Both Colorado State University (since 2003) and Blue Ridge Community College in Virginia (since 1995) have allowed concealed carry. For a combined total of over one hundred semesters, these schools have not seen a single gun-related incident, including threats, suicide, or gun theft.
There are even some examples in which armed students have actually stopped crime.
In 2002, a graduate student at the Appalachian School of Law was halted by two armed students after killing three people. In 2007, at the University of Akron, a man demanded entry into a student’s apartment, holding him at gunpoint. The student returned fire with a roommate's gun and the suspect fled the scene.
If officials like Crow are really worried about safety, they should look into more deterrents for gun crimes. Tens of thousands students, faculty, staff and visitors step onto one of ASU’s campuses every week. The belief that a single rule will keep all of these people from bringing guns onto campus is a farfetched idea that puts us all at risk.
Feeling safe is not equivalent to actually being safe. So let me introduce an idea: The most effective deterrent of violence on our campus would be the knowledge that people are not defenseless.
The hypothetical situations offered by Crow do not paint an accurate picture of law-abiding, trained individuals. The feared problem of whether people will be trained for such situations is easily solved by making training and gun safety courses mandatory steps in the process. Again, fear, and solutions lacking in common sense, is the only strength in the argument made by gun opponents like Crow.
To my fellow classmates, I ask that you look past the artificial bickering produced by administration officials and attempt to see beyond the surface and get into the facts of the matter that will affect our safety. Having people on campus that are trained and able to defend themselves and others is an essential part in maximizing our security. Once again, the facts and experiences surrounding this issue will show that freedom is the best alternative.
Reach the columnist at calfaro2@asu.edu Click here to subscribe to the daily State Press newsletter.
