guns on campus bad, really?
An article in the Daily Toreador had the headline “Cardone: Gun ownership good, guns on campus bad” and its actually one of the better articles written since the UT campus suicide. However there are some issues I have with this article. The premise of this article is that concealed carry on campus is a bad thing, and should continue to be prohibited. I have to disagree, and to argue against the article I must address facts and not the emotional conclusions made by the author.
First off the article says the suspect used an assault rifle. The weapon that was used in this case was reported to be an AK-47, there are conflicting reports of it being full auto or semi-auto. To be completely honest a full auto rifle is difficult and expensive to purchase legally, so we can pretty much assume the rifle was a semi-auto or illegal. The difference between a semi-auto rifle and a so called “assault weapon” from the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban is features like a pistol grip, detachable magazine, bayonet lug, ect. These features do nothing to make the weapon more dangerous, they just make it look different, and in some cases they make the firearm more ergonomic.
The next issue we must address is the contention that the suspect would have fought back if confronted by an armed student. I’ll take the author’s word for this as I lost my crystal ball that lets me see into alternate universes. So why is it ok for police to confront the shooter and possibly start a gun fight, but require students to become victims should the shooter decide to kill them?
The author next points out that almost every college has it’s own police department. He then states that these officers are better able to decide on and execute a plan without the loss of innocent life than any gun owner. Really? So an armed former soldier who is attending school on the GI Bill after doing urban combat overseas is not as capable of defending his life in the next 10 seconds as an officer who is only minutes away? And the victims who are killed by the gunman waiting for the police to come save them, are they not innocent lives?
After talking about the professionals who are better equipped to save innocent lives than the victims themselves he then claims that the DPS is incompetent. For the record the DPS is the state police force.
After that the author says that after completely the CHL course that a licensee might be competent to defend themselves and their family in their home, but its a different matter when it comes to a school campus. One doesn’t need a CHL to have a gun in their home, one needs a CHL to carry on their person away from their home and their vehicle.
Finally the author asks is it reasonable to expect a student to make life and death decisions about shooting people when all they have shot is a paper target and maybe a running deer. Last I checked those highly trained professional police officers shoot paper targets, because I doubt someone is using the public or prisoners as targets for police qualifications.
So while this may be the best article I have seen on this subject since the UT Campus suicide by AK-47, it still has too many holes in the logic and too many contradictions.



