In the wake of shootings at Purdue and near Michigan State University last month, Andrew Parks wrote a column supporting concealed carry on The University of Alabama’s campus. He claimed in this column that gun-free zones like college campuses create “prime targets for mass shooters,” and that the solution to this problem is to arm students to fight back against violent individuals.
In his piece, Mr. Parks doesn’t address the possibility of banning deadly weapons – like military-style rifles or pistols with extended clips – that were used in the Newtown, Conn., Milwaukee, Wis., Minneapolis, Mo., and Aurora, Colo., shootings to kill 118 since last year. He also doesn’t address the fact that extended magazines were used in the Virginia Tech and Columbine massacres, which seems relevant to the issue of shootings on college campuses.
Mr. Parks also doesn’t address the fact that there is no recorded instance of an American civilian stopping a mass shooting with a gun. I’m sure he would argue that this is because mass shootings take place in gun-free zones. All the same, at this moment the only evidence that armed civilians can and would kill mass shooters exists in gun advocates’ heads.
Mr. Parks also overlooks the fact that only a third of U.S. gun deaths are homicidal, and that the proliferation of handguns in the University could lead to a cost in suicides and accidental deaths that would dwarf the safety benefits.
And finally, Mr. Parks does not discuss the possibility that more guns in a low-crime area like our campus might lead to the escalation of otherwise nonviolent conflicts. He doesn’t seem concerned that the introduction of handguns into stressful situations could cause an attempted theft to turn into a self-defense killing.
Mr. Parks’ appraisal is, in short, incomplete. However, what disturbs me most about his proposal isn’t its impracticality. What disturbs me most is its moral implications.
Our current social model rests on a trust between all civilians, which is upheld by proper authorities. To instead adopt a crime-fighting model that hinges on the constant threat of violence from one’s fellowman is to become a weaker, baser culture. It isn’t a stand against mass shootings. It’s a concession to them.
What are we conceding, you may ask? The answer is many things, ranging from the practical to the spiritual.
We would be giving up on hope that America – like other countries – can transcend the threat of domestic terrorism. We would be betraying the ideal that violence is better fought with discourse than with more violence. We would be giving up the ideal of a country free from mass shootings, and replacing it with a world where we just kill violent offenders as quickly as possible.
And for the record, we should never assume, as Mr. Parks does, that mass violence is irascible. America is the only first-world country to experience regular mass shootings, which indicates that they are a symptom of our unique culture.
So maybe if we really want to reduce gun violence, the answer isn’t to bring in more guns. Maybe the problem stems from the fact that we glamorize and fetishize guns in the first place.
For the people who want a derringer in every pocket at the University, I hope that’s food for thought.
Nathan James is a junior majoring in public relations. His column runs weekly.
