GUNS ON CAMPUS

We’re hearing a hue and cry for permitting college students to carry guns on campus. Some seemingly intelligent elected officials are actually proposing such legislation and talking up the idea. The concept is that if some deranged person walks into a classroom with intent to shoot and kill people, the armed students can respond by using their own guns to disable or kill the deranged person before he can do his evil deed. Well, probably just kill the deranged person.

Let’s think about this, now. Sure, some college students may be former members of the military, some of whom actually have training with firearms and maybe even combat experience. But, the bulk of the 18, 19 and 20 year olds in college have no such experience. They may have experience playing video games and may envision themselves as heroes should they be confronted with a situation where they are afforded the opportunity to save a campus full of young people from a deranged, gun toting person. In reality, they are possessed of the judgment of children just out of high school. But, oh, do they ever swagger as they walk around campus with a handgun strapped to their side.

So, what we will be telling kids as they get out of high school is that when you go to college, you can strap on a handgun and wear it to class. (Of course, this will permit the deranged, gun toting person to blend in more readily but that’s not what we’re talking about, is it?) Then we tell the kids that if you, in your inexperienced, untrained, youthful mind perceive a threat, you are free to jump in and “take care” of the situation whether there is actually a threat or not.

ASIDE: Now, I know a lot of college faculty members. I don’t know any who would be comfortable walking into a classroom with untrained kids carrying real guns with live ammunition. Come to think of it, a lot of courthouses in this country don’t even let uniformed police officers carry their own weapons into the courthouse when they are there to testify. Ever wonder why? Because it’s easier to control conduct in a courthouse if you control and strictly limit who is allowed to enter the building with firearms.

BACK TO OUR THINKING. Let’s imagine that your child is one of the kids sitting in the front row. Someone walks into the classroom during class and three gun toters in the back perceive a threat. Suddenly, like the gunfight at the O.K. Corral, they whip out their guns and commence to firing on the person who walked in. Of course, they are not very well trained in the use of handguns. For example, they don’t realize that when firing several shots from a handgun all of the rounds will not go exactly where their eyes are focused. No, many if not all of the shots will miss the target completely, particularly when fired from further back in the classroom. There’s a pretty good chance that some of the students, oh, maybe two or three of them, sitting in the front row will suddenly get shot in the back of their heads. Oh, drat!

Notwithstanding that this might not really be a deranged person who actually poses a threat except in the minds of the kids we have armed as campus vigilantes, what if it is a deranged person? Now he knows where to direct his high powered weapon of mass destruction first, which weapon is infinitely more accurate than the puny handguns our prospective heroes, who just killed three of their classmates, are firing. Then, our deranged person whips out his shotgun which, too, is far more accurate than the puny handguns our prospective heroes are using. Plus, now you don’t only have a deranged, gun toting person - you have a pissed off deranged, gun toting person who really has his adrenaline going.

Now, let’s also imagine that sitting in the second row is the best friend of your late child, someone who managed to get a call in to 911 to report shots fired in the classroom and was not killed by the first barrage of vigilante fire.

Now, imagine that you are the first police officer who arrives on the scene. All your late child’s late best friend was able to say before being hit by the second barrage of gunfire from the vigilantes was that shots were fired and what classroom they were in. Sorry, there was not enough time to give more information such as the fact that vigilantes were firing too, or a description of the deranged person or an indication of how many deranged people there were. As you, the first police officer on the scene, step into the classroom, all you see is the one surviving vigilante still firing his 9mm handgun. Unfortunately, the deranged person has stopped to put another clip of ammunition into his high powered automatic rifle. Do you wait and sort out who poses the threat before taking action or do you shoot to kill the person you see firing a handgun in the classroom? Drat, there went the last of the vigilantes. Then, while your attention as the first police officer on the scene is focused on the falling vigilante, unfortunately the deranged person now opens up on you. The last thing you remember in your whole police officer life is hearing the rapid fire from the deranged person’s automatic weapon that the Second Amendment purportedly says he has a right to buy before the rounds from it snuff out your life. Double drat!

On the other hand, maybe the best way to deal with this perceived threat is to make it exceedingly difficult for the deranged person to get the high powered weapon of mass destruction and shotgun in the first place. Let’s see, which ranks higher, the interpretation of the Second Amendment that says everyone, including the pissed, deranged gun toting person is entitled to carry any kind of guns he wants wherever he wants to carry them or the part of the Constitution that says that everyone, including your late child, and your late child’s late best friend is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Guns or life. Guns or life. Guns or life. Guns or life. Guns or life.

Tough choice, huh?