Introduction
Over the last few months, the debate on gun control has increased especially after recent high profile shootings such as the shootings in the University of Texas, the Connecticut school massacre, and Northern Illinois University. Such horrific deeds have raised political, social, moral, and legal debates concerning gun laws. Consequently, parents and legislators have become worried about the safety of students in institutions of learning.
In reaction to this, a Texas state legislator, Brian Birdwell, filed a bill that will permit the carrying of concealed weapons in Texas public colleges, but only under a valid permit. However, such a law is based on misconstrued misconceptions that allowing more guns in the hands of good citizens will stop people from conducting such heinous acts.
In particular, Texas generally has lenient gun laws as compared to other states within the United States of America. However, these laws have failed to deal with school-related gun violence decisively. This paper, therefore, argues that permitting individuals to carry concealed guns at colleges would not necessarily make colleges safer since the law does not deal with the underlying factors of gun violence.
Discussion
Firstly, the lawmakers are ignoring the most significant countermeasures of gun violence involving policing and prevention. One has to go back to the nonpartisan panel of experts who reviewed the Virginia Tech shootings (Virginia Tech Review Panel 4). The panel concluded that a strategy of policing and prevention can really help in tackling gun violence in colleges since it takes into consideration the fact that lax background checks are the only reason that makes mentally ill people acquire guns.
Consequently, it emerged that that even licensed concealed weapons carriers also engage in aggressive misdeeds. Therefore, this law does not concurrently address the lack of insufficient filters that can be used to determine individuals who can rightfully possess guns. Given the Texas scenario, there is a lack of consistent and clear-cut arrangement for conducting background checks and disclosure of mental health data to carry concealed weapons. This predicament can be attributed to the legislators who during the last session did not vote for the bill that would have otherwise enhanced such a system.
In the first place, the lawmakers and supporters of the bill did not use significant effort to assess the opinions of Texas College students regarding their support in allowing concealed handgun carrying across their campuses. Evidently, a study conducted by Sam Houston State University researchers revealed that the average
Texas student opinion on such a notion contradicts the policy change. For instance, 23% of them revealed that they are very uncomfortable with such an idea as compared to 10% of them revealed that they are very comfortable with the idea of concealed guns in their campuses (Sam Houston State University 3). Furthermore, 39% of them revealed that they are slightly comfortable with such a policy (Sam Houston State University 3).
Additionally, the youthful and often aggressive age of college students in addition to their comparative immaturity and inexperience in dealing with such a possible life-threatening state could easily produce much more somber problems than the occasional incident as described above (Hepburn and Hemenway 417). This particular legislation sidelines the real cause of gun violence and that is dangerous people finding it easy to acquire firearms.
Supporters of this bill do not seem to comprehend that playing a video game or watching an actor reacting in a movie in similar scenario is different from real life incidents since individuals do not know how to react when faced with such a gunman. The only exception is when they had previous real-life experiences. The legislation will aggravate confrontations and dampen free speech across college campuses since the individual student or professor will be cautious to engage in sensible dispute or confrontation, as they do not know whether the other person could be carrying a concealed weapon and react irresponsibly.
Hence, such a law can dampen the college lifestyle as the students, and their professors will, in most instances, decide to hold back their coexistence. Furthermore, the argument that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens imply less crime is something which cannot be substantiated as realistic through research and social analysis because the outcome of allowing concealed arms in public areas is negligible (National Research Council of the National Academies 5).
Conclusion
This paper has argued that this law is insensible since gun violence currently being witnessed is a multi-pronged issue that requires a policy of prevention and policing rather than citizen justice. The issue of gun violence in America is much too disconcerted for such an authoritative claim of allowing concealed weapons in colleges to be made.
What this bill should do is to ensure that the college police and security personnel are able to deal with major events through establishing mutual assistance agreements with the local police departments for instant responses and assistance. Therefore, the college campuses should be left as areas for education and social interaction, rather than gunplay.
Works Cited
National Research Council of the National Academies. “Committee on Law and Justice, Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature.” Aggression and Violent Behavior, 31.2 (2004): 417-440. Print.
National Research Council of the National Academies. Firearms and Violence”: A Critical Review.” Washington: The National Academies Press, 2004. Print.
Sam Houston State University. “College Students In Texas and Washington Surveyed On Guns On Campus.” AustinScience Daily 2011: 21. Print.
Virginia Tech Review Panel 2012, Report of the Virginia Tech Review Panel. PDF file