As a faculty member at a large state university, one which has an explicit policy regarding bearing arms on campus, the recent story of armed self-defense at Gonzaga is an interesting one to me. The lessons are clear and, thus, will likely be missed by academicians everywhere.
It is, however, gratifying to read that in the aftermath of this event, Gonzaga University is at least dedicated to re-evaluating its weapons policy. It is a shame that these students had to be victimized on campus and violate policy as well as be placed on probation in order to motivate the administration to realize the policy needed review. It is a travesty that the only way such policies come under scrutiny is when steadfast support of them would mean saying out loud that it would have been better for these students to be unarmed victims on crime on campus.
I wrote not long ago about a violent crime spree that happened right off campus in an area largely populated by students, a crime spree that ended in the death of the criminal, but might have been cut short if one of the students who was victimized had possessed a firearm. While this occurred off-campus and thus absolved the campus administration from the need to question their own policies, it would certainly be prudent for them to consider whether that time has come - and to do so before someone on campus has to decide between violating policy or becoming a victim - a choice I make every day - or simply has no choice because the university has taken it away.
The absurdity of thinking that a criminal, intent on finding victims in a self-defense free zone, will in any way be deterred by campus policies (when it is virtually assured that the criminal will not be a student and will be carrying a weapon illegally) is mind-boggling. Yet this mindset pervades the halls of academia, is virtually unchallenged in this world of fairy tales and blinders. If we tell students and faculty that no guns are allowed on campus then we can be assured that no crime will happen. Please don't talk to me about the halls of science.
It makes no sense to them, cannot break through their wall of denial, to explain that criminals - predators - are by their nature, not followers of law and rules and are attracted to easy prey. In the wild, it is the defenseless animal that is taken first. When universities (and other institutions) enact such public policies, they essentially put up signs that say "No one will be armed here" or they are saying "It is open season here." Gullible, pre-occupied, naive, unarmed prey. Events, such as Virginia Tech, Columbine and Sandy Hook show this to be true (that is not to mention the Aurora shooting or the DC Naval Yard shooting). Even criminals intent to die do not ant to fail, do not want to meet heavy armed resistance before they can achieve some measure of their goals.
Tales like those at Gonzaga show us that armed students are 1) not dangerous to others (these men had not committed any crime), and 2) can stop crimes. It is likely, given research findings on how carry laws relate to reductions in crime, that criminal activity on campus will decrease when the probability of encountering a student with a firearm who can and will defend himself increases. At that point, to continue to insist that firearms not be on campus in this case will be tantamount to saying that campus administration wishes the students had been victims - it would have been better if they followed policy and became crime statistics. What a cowardly world that would be!
Alas, there is little hope that such issues will be openly debated and any meaningful changes considered. The myth of the inherent safety of gun-free zones will continue unabated, even in the face of such events. It is a cowardly world already.
No comments:
Post a Comment